Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Class Sizes

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the cost of his plans to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. [103675]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We are providing a total of £620 million to deliver the infant class size pledge, £200 million of which is for capital, which will provide an extra 2,000 classrooms. We are providing an extra 6,000 teachers, and we will achieve the class size pledge early.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is it not a fact that the Government originally estimated the cost of fulfilling that pledge at £100 million? Whatever the value of the pledge, is it not grossly incompetent of the Department for Education and Employment to spend six times the original estimate? Does the Secretary of State recognise that, if his Department had worked in partnership with independent schools to offer first-year schools provision, the pledge could have been delivered at a fraction of the cost? Does not that failure to work with the private sector show a lack of imagination on the part of the Minister and his colleagues? Will he welcome the intention of Surrey county council's local education authority to explore the use of independent schools, so that the pledge can be delivered with value for money while building bridges between different education providers in the local community?

Mr. Blunkett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he appears to be mixing different Conservative policies, and not addressing the issue of class size. There is no suggestion that class sizes could be reduced by using the private sector. No one has said that the class size pledge, which has reduced the number of children in classes of more than 30 from 500,000 to 180,000, and which will

reduce the number to nil within 18 months, could be achieved by buying places in infant classes in private schools that do not exist.

Mr. St. Aubyn: They do.

Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may say so, but we are spending money on 6,000 additional teachers to make a reduction in classes possible. We are spending on capital to ensure expansion so that more people may have choice. We are keeping the pledge early, by spending at least £300 million of the money that would have gone into the assisted places scheme by 2002. All that will ensure a decent education for every child in every community, not just children for whom a private school happens to be available.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the figures that my right hon. Friend has announced. It is rich to hear the Conservative party, which did not want to do anything about class sizes, moaning that we are spending too much money on reducing them. Will my right hon. Friend learn from the fact that money for the pledge has been ring-fenced? Will he ensure that all money passed from the Department for Education and Employment is passed on to schools? Will he ensure that much more funding is ring-fenced in future, so that local authorities such as Leicestershire cannot withhold money that the Government have given them for schools?

Mr. Blunkett: I am always willing to learn from successful policies. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that resources allocated for education are spent as intended, and that is why I have written to the leaders of every council and education authority. I want all Conservative, Liberal Democrats and Labour councils to fulfil commitments to the electorate to spend that money on education, not highways, repairs or spurious projects. It should be spent on ensuring that every child has a high-quality education. We shall monitor what happens over the next few weeks, learn lessons from that and take the appropriate steps.

Mrs. Theresa May: While the Government are spending £620 million on keeping their pledge, secondary class sizes are rising. How much would it have cost to keep secondary classes at the sizes inherited by the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that, in order to maintain spending on education as a proportion of national income at the average achieved by the Conservative Government, the Government would have had to inject through the comprehensive spending review not £19 billion, but £32 billion?

Mr. Blunkett: Average class size in both primary and secondary sectors fell from 24.9 in January 1998 to 24.8 in January 1999. We shall soon have the figures for the past 12 months. At the same time, the pupil-teacher ratio across the whole sector fell from 18.9 to 18.8 to one. By the end of the spending review, we shall have spent £200 extra on every primary school child, compared with a drop of £30 during the final three years of the previous Government.
At the end of the previous Parliament, gross domestic product had fallen as a proportion of national income by 0.3 per cent. By the end of the current Parliament, it will have risen by 0.2 per cent.

Mr. John Healey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an extra £500,000 has been put into schools in Rotherham this year to fund 18 additional key stage 1 teachers and help to slash the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in large classes? Does he recognise, however, that some schools prefer not to have mixed age groups, and that that can make it harder to reduce all class sizes to below 30? Will he reassure such schools that their approach will be respected as the Government move to keep the class size pledge in full?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I can give that assurance.

Higher Education (Cornwall)

Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): What assessment he has made of the higher education needs of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [103676]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): That kind of assessment is one for the interested bodies in the region to make. We welcome the work being done by the combined universities in Cornwall partnership. In Cornwall, as elsewhere, higher education is critical to economic and social development. We recognise the strong demand for higher education in Cornwall, as shown by the 7 per cent. increase, between 1998 and 1999, of students from Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly who are studying at UK higher education institutions.

Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. However, Cornwall lacks the core university facilities that many other parts of the country take for granted. What security can Cornwall achieve in its plans to establish such core facilities? To do so, some assurance as to student numbers is required in the medium term.

Mr. Wicks: Many parts of the country do not have their own university as such. However, as I pointed out, the work being carried out in Cornwall by Exeter university, Plymouth university and Falmouth college of arts is encouraging. I know that the Higher Education Funding Council wants an increase in higher education opportunities in Cornwall, as do we.

Specialist Schools

Barbara Follett (Stevenage): How many specialist schools will be established within the next two years. [103677]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the names of 36 schools that will be

designated specialist schools. That brings the total to 480. Current plans mean that there will be 600 specialist schools by September 2001, and 800 by 2003.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that that expansion shows the Government's commitment to modernising the comprehensive system? Will she do all that she can to encourage more schools, especially in the eastern region, to apply for that status?

Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. There has long been a myth about the monolith of sameness in comprehensive schools. The specialist schools programme clearly shows that comprehensive schools do have strengths. They should be allowed to develop and build on those strengths. We should expect them to share their expertise with other schools, as happens under the specialist school programme.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased that, today, we have announced that there will be two further specialist schools in her county—although they are not in Stevenage. I hope that further applications will be made from other areas, including Stevenage, and that there will be designations at a future date.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of schools being encouraged to develop specialisms is that teachers and governors can be motivated to develop those schools further? Does she realise that there is a particular interest in developing specialisms in languages, in science and technology and in sport? Will she join me in congratulating France Hill school in my constituency? The school was known for its specialism in sport but, under the inspired leadership of Mrs. Jacqui Pearson, the head teacher, it has gone from strength to strength. The school has recently been given a most successful Ofsted report, and will tomorrow receive its basic skills award.

Ms Morris: I congratulate Mrs. Pearson, her staff and everyone who worked in the school and the community to raise standards. It is interesting that, in specialist sports schools applications, the quality of grades needed to secure designation is possibly higher than in any other specialism. The quality of work developed in such schools—both with students and in the wider community—has the potential to transform what is going on in some quite disadvantaged areas.
I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the school and in recognising the effects on motivation. The key to being granted specialist school status lies in the preparation that schools and governors have had to undertake to receive the designation. They are required to have a clear head and a clear eye on targets, and to face staff development. They need to ensure that everyone in the school has those targets and objectives as the endgame—they must work together co-operatively to achieve them. We applaud that process, as much as the outcome, in the specialist schools that we have announced today.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the spectacular bid that she will receive from Holmesdale community school in Snodland in my constituency? It will bring together the process industries in the Medway valley and it will be one


of the most innovative bids that she will receive. The head teacher, Mr. Ian Hobson, has performed a monumental task; since he arrived at the school, he has dragged it up from a low position, so that it is now going somewhere. If the school can get the status that it wants, that will be the icing on the cake.
I understand that bids have to be entered in March. When will my hon. Friend make an announcement about the next round? Obviously, the schools that are to have a new status in September will need time to prepare.

Ms Morris: I compliment my hon. Friend on his tenacity and admire him for it. He has been lobbying on behalf of the school before I have received the application, which has made it a bit difficult for me to pursue the matter, but that is his job and he does it very well. If the school's application is very innovative, I will look forward to receiving it with greater eagerness than might otherwise have been the case. We hope to announce the results of the next successful round in the summer, and we expect and shall ensure that those schools will have sufficient time to prepare their plans.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Minister knows that Liberal Democrat Members support the broad thrust of specialist schools. We are, in particular, delighted that very few of those schools have taken the option of selecting by aptitude.
Does the right hon. Lady agree, however, that the success of specialist schools, particularly in maths, science and modern languages, greatly depends on recruiting high quality teachers? Does she share our disappointment that the figures announced last week show yet another drop in the number of applicants for postgraduate certificate of education courses in all those subjects? Despite golden hellos, we have failed to meet our targets. What does the Minister intend to do to make up that deficit and recruit high-quality teachers who want to work in specialist schools?

Ms Morris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about the specialist school programme. I know that his constituency has greatly benefited from the programme, and he has always been kind enough to recognise that.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of the golden hellos. Last year, golden hellos in maths and science were responsible for an 18 per cent. increase and a 3 per cent. increase respectively in the numbers of PGCE students beginning courses at the start of this academic year. I am entirely confident that our initiative on golden hellos for modern foreign languages this year will bring about equally good results.
I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point that it is no good pretending that historically we have found it easy to recruit young and not-so-young teachers to areas of short supply. One of the ways in which specialist schools can contribute is by giving a clear message that the country values teachers in those specialisms. We should put those teachers high on our agenda, and make it clear that their jobs are marvellous, fulfilling and rewarding.
Specialist schools do not have as much trouble recruiting teachers as they might have. The crucial point is that specialist schools will take on the responsibility for training other teachers, and that is how we shall raise

standards and, in turn, entice more people into the profession. We need to achieve good teaching in those subjects at school level. With the Green Paper proposals to reform the profession, we will make teaching more attractive and attract the quality and calibre of people that we need.

Beacon Schools

Mr. David Kidney: What steps he is taking to develop new technologies in beacon schools. [103678]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): Beacon schools, like all our schools, are benefiting from the £700 million of investment that the Government are making in information and communications technologies in schools up to 2002. Beacon schools are already using those technologies imaginatively, and they have an important part to play in promoting them in other schools.

Mr. Kidney: When I last spoke to the head teachers of the two beacon schools in Stafford—the primary schools of Barnfields and Oakridge—they both spoke with obvious warmth about their positive experience of beacon school status and the enthusiasm not only in their school but in all the other schools with which they have created links for sharing best practice.
Both head teachers, however, said that they thought their school could do better. One was looking forward to the completion of the third phase of investment in the national grid for learning equipment and contact. The second head teacher would welcome access to greater computing expertise, which the school does not have. Is my hon. Friend hearing similar comments from the head teachers of other beacon schools? Can they look forward to receiving a little extra assistance with information and communications technologies, which will enable them to do their job that much better?

Mr. Wills: I thank my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the beacon school programme has been so warmly welcomed in his constituency. I assure him that there will be further investment in these technologies. Between 2000 and 2002, we are putting something like £450 million into the national grid for learning in England. We are also developing new and imaginative ways of spreading best practice in such schools. On 2 December, we announced an important new partnership with the IBM International Foundation, which will help beacon schools to develop and will further spread best practice.

Mr. Ian Taylor: There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence from schools and industry that the Government's rhetoric and resources are admirable, but that their implementation leaves a lot to be desired. Does the Minister have a sense of priority about the recent report from the Cabinet Office entitled "E-commerce at its best.UK", which contained specific objectives for educational achievement in technology? When does he expect to deliver those objectives, because they are much more accelerated than the ones that his Department has announced?

Mr. Wills: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments about our programme for the national grid for


learning. I know that he has been a pioneer of many of these technologies for many years, and I welcome that. The reports that we receive from schools suggest that the programme is already having a significant impact. We are working on the standards that we shall expect all children to achieve in the technologies, and we shall make an announcement at the appropriate time.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Although many of us welcome the initiative of beacon schools and the resources that they receive, will my hon. Friend remember that the average school is crucial? In an average school in our constituencies, too often only a nominal one hour a week is spent on the computer. Students cannot use the computers in their classrooms during the lunch break—they are locked out—and they have minimal access to them after school. That is the truth in many of the schools that we visit. Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to make sure that average schools open up so that this country can become the leading information-learning country of Europe at the very least?

Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the needs of all schools. The Government are committed to ensuring that every single school and every single child in this country can benefit from these technologies. That is why we are making the investment that we are. We are investing not just in technology and hardware, but in training teachers through the new opportunities fund, which is providing £230 million to make sure that every teacher in every classroom knows how best to make use of the technologies. My hon. Friend can be assured that we will continue to do that.

Secondary Schools

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): What steps he has taken to enable local education authorities to improve a secondary school's infrastructure if pupil numbers are substantially increased. [103679]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): My Department provides financial support where a local education authority has shown that there are insufficient school places in an area to cope with the projected increase in pupil numbers. This support covers the additional teaching area that is needed, as well as any necessary expansion to schools' ancillary areas.

Mr. Jack: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, there seems to be a breakdown between the policy intentions that she has outlined and the reality for the Lytham St. Anne's high technology school in my constituency. She may be aware that it has received a great many extra pupils over the past few years, but the infrastructure of the school has not expanded to meet that demand. For example, there is a restriction on the number of pupils who can take school dinners, because they have a problem in getting them through in the lunch hour. Is there any further guidance that she can offer me on the steps that could and should be taken by Lancashire education authority to deal with that problem? If not, the school will not be able to function as effectively and efficiently as it should to serve the extra pupil numbers.

Jacqui Smith: Given the concern that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed about school infrastructure, I am sure that he will welcome the doubling of investment in school buildings that will be made under this Government.
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Government have provided financial support for 374 secondary and post-16 places in the Fylde. That support amounts to £2.6 million. I also understand that two major extensions have been completed to the Lytham St. Anne's high school and a 175-place extension is planned. There has also been work to provide additional toilets and a purpose-built staff room. The Government have made the money available to the local education authority, and it appears to be being spent in the school.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: May I take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the more than £170 million package of infrastructural improvements that has been put together for the Bradford district school reorganisation? I commend to my hon. Friend, for example, the project at the Salt grammar school in my constituency, where a new 29-classroom block is being planned to provide for extra pupil numbers. I urge her closely to monitor the financial package in the Bradford district so that we can complete the important transition to the new system on time and to budget.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the significant resources that the Government put into general investment in school buildings and surplus place reorganisation, and the capital expenditure that that necessitates. I can assure him that we monitor carefully the spending that goes into surplus place reorganisations to ensure that that process takes place and that it is based on value for money; and to ensure also the objectives that the authority has set down.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Lady agree that school sixth form may require expansion to meet demand? Does not the issue of where the capital funding will come from remain unsolved? At the same time, the safeguards that the Government have developed for funding the continuation of sixth forms, let alone their expansion, depends on the flimsiest of defences: a single year of baseline numbers. There is also the threat of withdrawal of sixth forms by the Learning and Skills Council for alleged inadequacy. Does not this amount—in the view of schools and local education authorities—to a set of proposals for 16 to 19-year-olds that aims a pistol at the heart of sixth forms?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, given the clear objectives that have been laid down by the Government in relation to post-16 education: to bring at last some coherence to the system that funds education and training, to promote high standards for all our children post-16 and to protect school sixth forms that are doing a good job.
To return to the question, we want the doubling of capital investment that the Government have undertaken to ensure that, for all children in school, both pre-16 and post-16, we no longer have what we inherited from the


previous Government: crumbling schools, leaking roofs and a failure to promote the standards that this Government are promoting.

National Child Care Strategy

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on progress made by child care partnerships in meeting targets set for them under the national child care strategy. [103680]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The early years partnerships and child care partnerships at local level were given a target in the current financial year of creating 82,000 places. By the mid-year point at the end of September, they had tripled that half-year target by creating 76,000 of the 82,000 places. That is more than the number of child care places that were created over the last four years of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the child care strategy is another example of the Government delivering on their election promises, and that it will go a long way towards helping families?

Mr. Blunkett: That strategy will have the role of providing developmental care for young children, including an additional 48,000 free places for three-year-olds in nursery school that would not have been available but for the Labour Government. It will also free families to make choices about returning to work and about their arrangements to support family learning.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Pre-School Learning Alliance—I am sure that he, like me, has great respect for that organisation—reports this year that 1,500 playgroups have closed and 1,700 more are likely to close as a direct result of Government policy? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that that is a helpful contribution to policy?

Mr. Blunkett: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that, over the past two years, we have provided £500,000 to help to protect playgroups and other providers when the market changes locally and parents consequently make different choices. Eighty per cent. of the funding that we are making available will go into the private and voluntary sector to provide new places when parents want them. Parents also have the choice of a nursery place rather than a pre-school place.
We want people to work together so that seamless care and nursery education can be provided throughout the day and the week. We are pleased that the Pre-School Learning Alliance has agreed to meet that challenge and work to ensure that we can provide comprehensive care.

Mr. Maria Fyfe: At a recent meeting in Scotland of single-parent organisations, there was unanimous welcome for the money that the Government have provided for pre-school care and care out of school hours. However, the organisations asked what steps had been taken to help parents who need

full-time care, or those who work unusual hours—for example, nurses who work shifts and find it impossible to find care for their children.

Mr. Blunkett: There are some interesting experiments in care during working hours to offer family-friendly, flexible working provision, including in the national health service. I will write to my hon. Friend with some examples that can be passed on to the trust and health board in her area, so that parents can use not only formal provision, but excellent child-minding provision, which plays a key part in creating flexibility and ensuring that children receive decent, high-quality care during unsocial working hours.

Mr. Theresa May: Whatever the Secretary of State claims in his answers about the number of child care places that are made available, the Department's figures show that the number of places in playgroups and with child minders fell last year. In March last year, the Government said that they would spend £8 billion on child care. In his recent speech on social exclusion and the politics of opportunity, the Secretary of State confirmed that £470 million would be invested in child care in England during this Parliament. Is the difference between the two figures the first sign of the pain that education will suffer as the Government try to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge on NHS spending—or was the figure of £8 billion simply an aspiration?

Mr. Blunkett: The difference is accounted for by the fact that the £470 million constitutes the direct investment in ensuring that the infrastructure is in place. The total sum for the period to which the hon. Lady refers includes: the working families tax credit disregard, which will invest directly in the parent's choice of provision; investment in nursery education; and the sure start programme, which will play a key part in meeting the needs of children and families and enhancing their capacity to develop informal as well as formal care in the community.
It is not the job of Government alone to provide child care and early-years places. That provision should be made through a partnership between families and the broader community to ensure that there is a range and diversity of care, and that we all fulfil that responsibility.

Mr. Syd Rapson: In what ways his Department is helping parents to find out about the child care places in their area. [103681]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): All partnerships are developing information services based on minimum service standards. ChildcareLink, a freephone national child care information line, and child care website was launched in December. A separate project to provide local information points in outlets such as supermarkets and doctors' surgeries was piloted in the autumn.

Mr. Rapson: Does the Minister agree that it is essential that mothers and fathers, especially in Portsmouth, North are able to gain not just access to child care, but information on education and employment—in other


words, joined-up information? Does she agree not only that access to child care is important but that confidence that child care facilities are of high quality is equally so?

Ms Hodge: I agree entirely that joined-up information is what parents and families require. The pilots that we have run in supermarkets provided information not just about child care places, but about jobs available locally, training opportunities, benefits and community health services. I also agree that parents will take advantage of the new child care places only if they are assured that those are of a high quality.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It is not going to be easy for parents to find out about child care places if playgroups are closing. Can we have a straight answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Why have 1,500 playgroups closed, and why does the Pre-School Learning Alliance suggest that 1,700 will close this year? In a rural area such as mine, playgroups are vital.

Ms Hodge: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has left the Chamber. He seems to have gone for an early, and probably a long, lunch.
On the subject of playgroups, it has often been put on the record, and I am happy to put it on record again today, that the real damage to playgroups has been done not by the present Government but by the previous Government, who introduced the ill-conceived nursery voucher system, which was based on competition, not co-operation. Under our system, co-operation through partnerships will ensure a strong role for playgroups in future.

New Deal (Scotland)

Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about the new deal in Scotland. [1036821

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal is working in Scotland. The latest figures show that more than 19,000 young people and more than 2,500 long-term unemployed adults have found jobs through the new deal. We are on course to meet our manifesto commitment of getting 250,000 young people off benefit and into work across Britain.

Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware that, despite the opposition of all the parties in Scotland, long-term youth unemployment in Scotland has decreased by three quarters, from just over 16,000 to just over 4,000? Does she agree that the nature of the problem has changed, away from an entire generation that had been ignored and unemployed to a much smaller number of hard-core, long-term unemployed young people, where unemployment may be endemic throughout the family? Can she assure the House that, as the new deal develops and the nature of the problem changes, she will bear those experiences in mind?

MsJowell: I thank my hon. Friend for those perceptive comments, which reflect a clear understanding of the challenges facing the new deal. He is right to say that,

building on the success of the new deal to date, we are turning our attention to providing more intensive support for young people coming on to the first stage of the new deal—the gateway—who lack basic skills and for whom that lack, unless it is addressed, will be a long-term obstacle to their employability. That is an important practical step towards tackling the problem of inter-generational unemployment, to which my hon. Friend referred.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members who are rising that the question relates entirely to Scotland. I call Mr. Beggs. If he is prepared to put a question relating to Scotland, I will take it.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I represent the constituency in Northern Ireland closest to Scotland.

Madam Speaker: That will not do.

Mr. Beggs: I am now proceeding to my question, Madam Speaker.
I welcome the announced success of the new deal in Scotland, but will the Minister confirm that it has dramatically reduced unemployment not only there, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will she assure the House that she will ask those in the Government who can influence investment and a reduction in unemployment to encourage opportunity for those who come on to the employment market through the new deal? That is the only way in which people who have previously been unemployed can share in the nation's increasing wealth.

Madam Speaker: The Minister should be aware that the substantive question relates entirely to Scotland and her answer must relate to Scotland.

Ms Jowell: I accept your guidance, Madam Speaker. I can confirm that the experience of the new deal in Scotland is representative of that across the United Kingdom. The key issue is the promotion of employability as an important part of maintaining economic stability and the benefits of economic growth.

Mr. Richard Allan: rose—

Madam Speaker: Now we shall see how close Yorkshire is to Scotland.

Mr. Allan: I understand that the new deal programme in Scotland has underspent considerably in respect of initial projections. Has the Minister had any discussions with her colleagues in Scotland about how to reallocate those resources, and can she explain how future new deal enhancements such as those she described will take place, given the Scottish dimension and the devolution of the programme to the Scottish Parliament?

Ms Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The new deal is a United Kingdom programme and I regularly meet the Scottish new deal task force, to which I pay tribute. Certainly the initial costs have been


lower than anticipated, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out clearly in the pre-Budget report the ways in which we shall intensify support for young people and those older people who have been unemployed long term. We shall announce detailed proposals on both sources of additional help in due course.

Mr. Ian Davidson: My constituency is not the nearest to Northern Ireland, nor to England and Wales, but it is one of the nearest to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy).
Is the Minister aware that, although the new deal has undoubtedly been an enormous success in Scotland, the figures recently produced by the Trades Union Congress show that constituencies where the fall in unemployment has been greatest tend to have the least absolute unemployment? The constituencies that were worst off remain the worst off, even after the introduction of the new deal. Does she accept that many young people who have vanished from the ranks of the unemployed have not gone into jobs, but seem to have disappeared from the registers altogether? There seems to be no record of where they have gone and there should be additional effort and additional expenditure to make sure that the real needs of those youngsters at the very bottom of the pile are followed up.

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes two important points. He referred first to the level of long-term unemployment in respect of which the new deal will build on its success and work harder in areas where unemployment rates have traditionally been highest. We have to redouble our efforts there to ensure that the young and older long-term unemployed people are given the skills to get them off benefit into work.
My hon. Friend's second point is a matter of real concern. Across the United Kingdom, about 160,000 young people appear to have dropped off the edge of our society. The new deal clearly has important help and support to offer them, and I hope that, in due course, we shall be able to introduce proposals to extend help to them.

Skills Development (Trade Unions)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103683]

Ms Julie Morgan: What steps his Department is taking to support the role of trade unions in developing skills. [103684]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have made £12 million available to all trade unions. What we are doing involves 100 projects, and 50 unions working with employers. They have already managed to provide basic skills and development courses for 200,000 employees. That has introduced new possibilities for negotiation and bargaining in the workplace, brought together employers

and trade unions in regard to the positive skills agenda, and ensured that more than 1,000 learning representatives have been appointed throughout the work force.

Mr. Pike: I welcome the establishment of the union learning fund, but how many other unions might be able to take advantage of it, and what will be the priority in tackling the need for basic skills?

Mr. Blunkett: The programme has been massively oversubscribed by trade unions wishing to be part of it. As I have said, it involves unions working with employers and, in many instances, working together. Basic skills, including skills in information technology, are a key priority.
It is entertaining to note that the Transport and General Workers Union, working with colleges in the north-west of England, is using transport cafés to lay on information and communication technology courses for road hauliers and coach drivers who are stopping off for half an hour—thus bringing about an entirely new version of "chips with everything".

Ms Morgan: Women now constitute 47 per cent. of the work force and 46 per cent. of trade union membership. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the principles of equal opportunity apply to all applications to the fund, so that women will have an opportunity to fulfil themselves through the trade union movement?

Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. We are keen for part-time workers to be able to take advantage of the scheme. Along with the local trust in Ipswich and Gardner Merchant, Unison has provided an across-the-board programme of basic in-service training. The National Union of Teachers, working with the Royal College of Midwives, has introduced an exemplary scheme offering information and communications technology training for its members in continuing professional development.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I want to ask about the development of skills by trade unions in my county of Leicestershire. I have here a document sent to me by the six teachers' unions, expressing their wish to develop skills in Leicestershire schools. They say that, unfortunately, because of the reduction in standard spending assessment, 39 per cent. of secondary schools are reducing staff and, moreover, that 30,000 secondary pupils will be in larger classes next year.
Given the desire of trade unions to develop skills and education, will the Secretary of State address the problems that they have raised, which result from a reduction in the education SSA? Furthermore, instead of waffling on about reducing class sizes for children aged five, six and seven, will he accept that class sizes for all other age groups are increasing in Leicestershire and elsewhere?

Mr. Blunkett: First, I will not accept that. Secondly, the SSA has not been reduced, and nor has the revenue support grant to match it. The SSA is going up by 5.3 per cent., and the Department has directly invested £50 million in addition to that. Over the spending review


period, there will be a real-terms increase of 16 per cent. on education, twice as much as the last Government invested throughout the last Parliament.

Mr. John Bercow: As a member of the proletariat and a strong supporter of constructive trade unionism, and recognising that no one in the country has done more to create the climate in which such trade unionism can flourish than my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford, may I assure the Secretary of State that Conservative Members accept that unions can assist in developing skills?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept two straightforward points from me? First, whatever unions' inputs to the bargaining for skills programme, employee development schemes, the learning and skills councils and the union learning fund, we will soon need evidence from an independent report of their outputs in terms of the creation of new jobs. Secondly, will the Secretary of State accept that, given that only 19 per cent. of private sector employees are members of trade unions, it is imperative that training should be led by businesses small, medium and large?

Mr. Blunkett: That is precisely why we have indicated that at least 40 per cent. of the places on the new learning and skills councils will be for those who have immediate or immediate past experience of business and commerce. Just to put the record straight for the London TEC Council, a total of £5 billion is going into adult learning.
I accept that Lord Tebbit has enormous experience of trade unionism from the British Air Line Pilots Association. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the association will have access to those funds. What we will not be able to do is use the resources to train people to ride bicycles.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the different tradition of the Workers Educational Association and university extramural education for trade unionists, from which at least three Members who are currently in the House have benefited and from which many others have benefited in the past? Is anything being done to refurbish and remobilise that tradition, which has significant benefit in the spin-off for communities in that non-vocational education is developed?

Mr. Blunkett: Through the national learning and skills councils, the WEA will, for the first time, have direct access to overall national resources, which will be a major boon in sorting out the current disparities in funding throughout the country. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are keen to learn from the experience of the extramural provision from which he and others have benefited and to replicate it through the residential colleges, which continue to do an excellent job in providing mature students with adult learning on access and diploma courses, which often lead to people not only going into higher education, but returning to the workplace and their community to which they can then contribute the skills and potential that they have been able to develop on those courses.

Teachers (PRP)

11. Mr. Colin Breed: If he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for financing performance-related pay for teachers. [103685]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): For an initial period starting in September 2000, we will establish a special grant to target resources for the performance threshold additional to, and separate from, schools' delegated budgets. Schools will be able to draw additional funds from the grant via their local education authority for each teacher who is promoted to the upper pay spine. There will be no quota on threshold successes.

Mr. Breed: Does the Minister accept that, after two years, ring-fenced funding will disappear and schools will be required to meet those threshold payments from their own hard-pressed budgets? Does that not amount yet again to another deferred pay scheme for our hard-pressed teachers?

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is rather ungenerous. He talks about hard-pressed budgets, but I have just made it clear that we have held money back centrally to fund teachers who go through the threshold, that there will be no quota and that that money will be paid.
We have made it clear that we want to ring-fence the money for two years. That covers the period of the current comprehensive spending review. We will want to learn from what has happened, but there is another tension that the hon. Gentleman must recognise: the wish of heads to control their budget. I think that there is agreement across the political parties that local management of schools has been a good initiative. We do not want to damage that. I hope that, over the next two years, we will get the balance right between giving assurance to heads that LMS will stay and to the teaching profession that extra money is there.
The key message is that the money is there. It is ring-fenced for the next two years. As ever, we will review the position and make announcements on how the scheme will be funded after that.

Ms Joan Ryan: Last week, I met secondary head teachers at schools in Enfield, North, and a more committed, positive and enthusiastic group one could not wish to meet. They are doing their very best for secondary school pupils in my constituency. They raised the issue of financial resources to support implementation of performance-related pay arrangements. I should like to clarify whether they will be able to use available financial resources to pay for supply cover while they are going through the appraisal process.

Ms Morris: I add my thanks to those that my hon. Friend has already given to secondary school teachers in Enfield, North. She was kind enough to update me on that meeting, and I am very appreciative of all the work that those teachers do. I understand their scepticism. Under the previous Government, they spent 18 years being asked to implement initiatives, but without a penny to support that implementation. I think that that history is why they are still so sceptical about initiatives.
I assure my hon. Friend, however, that the Government have funded the Green Paper initiatives, and all our other initiatives, including training. We have ensured that every school is able to access those opportunities without detriment to the pupils whom they teach.

Mr. Theresa May: I listened very carefully to the Minister's answer to the original question on this topic. Performance-related pay for teachers, however, is yet another example of the Government saying one thing but doing another. The Minister talks about the provision of central funds, but the reality—as she herself said in answer to the original question—is that that money is being held back centrally and top-sliced from money provided to local authorities to provide the £150 million required this year to meet pay increases for teachers going through the threshold, despite the fact that Ministers promised that all funding for the scheme would be provided centrally, from the £1 billion that was being allocated.
Will the Minister confirm that that money has been top-sliced from local authorities' budgets—so that, overall, they are receiving less than they had expected—to fund pay increases that the Government have promised to fund centrally? She said that £1 billion would be allocated centrally, and that £150 million is being spent on teachers' pay increases, but how much of that £1 billion is being spent on administering the scheme?

Ms Morris: The hon. Lady has a vivid imagination. The reality is that, even if we exclude the money for threshold payments, the SSA increase to local authorities is 5.4 per cent. If we include the money that will go to local authorities and schools as part of the threshold payment, the increase would come to 6.1 per cent. If she wants an argument about increases of 5.4 and 6.1 per cent., I will have it. But let us be clear: under the previous Government, in not one year did SSA increases anywhere near enough to touch either of those increases.The truth is that, after the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 27 November, funding to authorities as part of the SSA increased by £154 million.
If the hon. Lady adds all the increases together, they total 8.1 per cent., which is a record to be proud of. The increases will deliver higher standards, reform the teaching profession and, for the very first time, ensure that we have in place a mechanism for rewarding our best teachers. That is what we need.

Drugs

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the exclusion of pupils found in possession of controlled drugs while on school premises. [103686]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Circular 10/99, "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support", issued to maintained schools last July, makes it clear that it is for

head teachers to decide whether to exclude permanently for all drug-related incidents, although in some cases excluding for a fixed period may be a more appropriate course of action. We are planning to write to schools very shortly to clarify and simplify some of the exclusion procedures.

Mr. Winterton: Although I welcome the fact that head teachers should be responsible for exclusions of pupils in possession of controlled drugs, will the Minister say what provision is made for children who are excluded? Are they sent to specialist centres, where they are given treatment to come off drugs? Is the decision about when those children are considered fit enough to return to mainstream education only for head teachers, or is it to be made in consultation with parents and others?

Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady has made a very important point on the need for schools, with other agencies, to develop policies on keeping children in school—whenever it is possible to do so, without disrupting the education of others—and on ways of ensuring that children who have come into contact with drugs are adequately treated. That is why we are doubling the support available for early intervention on exclusions and truancy and giving the help that all hon. Members want us to provide.

European Directives

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he last met Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss the impact on employment prospects of European directives relating to British business. [103687]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): My right hon. Friend and I often meet ministerial colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry to discuss various matters, including matters relating to the European Union. Ministers at both Departments represent the UK on the Social Affairs Council, which provides a forum for discussion of European employment legislation.

Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Minister for her answer. Many of us know that she is a reasonable person. We concede that membership of the European Union has brought some benefits to business, but does she accept that some European directives have damaged industry? She will be aware, for example, that the sale of Armitage Shanks in my constituency was a direct result of a European directive resisted by the previous Government but rapidly accepted by the Labour Government. Will she read the report to be published by the Institute of Directors early next week, which undertakes a cost-benefit analysis of the European Union for business? Will she ask her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement on the report when it is published?

Ms Jowell: I am happy to study that report when it is published. Ministers at the Department for Education and


Employment and the Department for Trade and Industry believe that the implementation of European directives should not pose undue regulatory burdens on business and should strike a proper balance between fairness at work and the need to keep costs and burdens to a minimum. Yesterday we published figures that show that there are

more people in work than ever. We can be proud of that record. We intend to work with our European partners to build on that and ensure greater employability and more people in work in the UK and across the European Union. We shall be working together in Europe, not barking on the fringes.

Millennium Bug

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): As I promised the House on 15 December, I am reporting back on an event that was unique in human history—the millennium date change—and its effects—

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What about the year 1000?

Mrs. Beckett: The whole House will agree that the effects of the millennium date change on central Government and the national infrastructure in the UK were a unique event. The unprecedented feature of the date change is that it stimulated an IT project that met its deadline. I am pleased to confirm that so far, as predicted, it is business as usual in the United Kingdom. In what is believed to be the largest co-ordinated project since the second world war, thorough and detailed planning across government and the national infrastructure, both publicly and privately controlled, ensured a smooth transition over the date change.
There is no doubt that the work had to be done. The millennium bug was shown to have the capacity to wreak havoc among services which, though essential, we take for granted. The Government's objective in that work was always to ensure that the bug resulted in no material disruption to essential services. That objective has been achieved.
No Government Department has reported any significant problems. The alert status, contingency arrangements and staff cover of Departments and agencies over the date change meant they could deal quickly with the minor Y2K bug problems that were discovered. Across the national infrastructure, electricity, gas, water and telecoms as well as offshore oil and gas industries continued to operate as normal, and the markets and financial sector successfully resumed full trading on 4 January.
The Government spent an estimated £380 million on tackling the millennium bug in our own systems, although without needing to make special further additions to Departments' budgets. The investment made was both necessary and beneficial. Continued payment of benefits, pensions and child support could be ensured only by essential and major system changes. Many of MAFF's internal systems, such as those for processing common agricultural policy payments on time, required corrective action or replacement.
In the wider public sector, NHS trusts and Government agencies found problems that needed to be fixed. Problems in gas repayment meters and electricity prepayment meters were found and fixed. Elsewhere in the private sector—everywhere from finance to food and transport to telecoms—major potential problems were found and fixed, in time. There were, and no doubt will continue to be, further minor glitches.
Here in the UK, a retailers' card reader problem before the date change affected about 5 per cent. of terminals in shops, and hence the public. Although such problems needed to be rectified, there have been no further reports in either public or private sectors of problems which have caused a significant inconvenience to the public.
The sorts of failures experienced typically have been incorrect date displays appearing on internal reports and read-outs. They have had no impact on customers. Those problems were corrected swiftly and had no impact on operations precisely because organisations were on the alert for problems and had put business continuity plans in place. The same pattern has been evident internationally—no material disruption, but concrete problems. For example, both France and the United States experienced problems with military satellites.
However, the relief that success creates should not obscure the very real difficulties that have been faced and overcome—problems whose nature and scale could indeed have caused major disruption in our economy and society. The failure of many critical systems within a short space of time over the date change would have been disastrous, and literally thousands of faults—many of them serious—had to be dealt with before the date change. The work of Government Departments, of Action 2000 and of service deliverers was vital in ensuring that the infrastructure continued to work as well as it did.
A huge amount of preventive work was done on the bug across the world, including in Russia, Asia, Latin America and Africa. Those who came late to the work benefited from the advice and experience of those already prepared. However, not one of the 173 countries which attended the largest-ever special meeting in the history of the United Nations in June last year failed to recognise that all faced some serious problems.
The investment made will yield real benefits. All organisations have probed their operations in depth, and replaced or discarded much that was out of date or no longer needed. Many have discovered long-standing flaws that were not fully recognised in the past. For example, as part of the work on assessing critical services that might be affected by the year 2000 problem, the Dutch Government identified a resources issue in their emergency call-handling posts—their equivalent of 999—which potentially could have caused the entire system to crash if as few as 140 or so simultaneous calls had been received.
There has been global co-operation in which knowledge has been freely shared. We look forward to that co-operation continuing in many fields. Moreover, there are other lessons to be learned. This was recognised early on as a management issue, and not just an IT issue—and was so handled. That may well be why it came in on time.
Prioritisation of business-critical systems worked. That is why the public experienced little disruption, despite the problems that have arisen. Business continuity planning was successful in working around those problems that did occur and millennium-operating regimes meant they could be and are being fixed. The breadth and depth of that experience will have continuing value.
Similarly, proper and wide-scale planning ensured that 3 million people—by the police's estimate—attended the millennium celebrations in London alone without serious incident, and similar celebrations throughout the UK passed off successfully. I will be publishing in February detailed returns from Departments on the impact of the millennium bug, and this will be followed by a more detailed report on lessons learned and benefits captured.
I would again like to pay tribute from the whole House to the vast number of people in the UK across the public and private sectors who have worked tirelessly to ensure


no material disruption in the UK as a result of the date change—not least those who staffed the Government's millennium centre, which kept the media and the public informed. Our success in meeting the threat of the millennium bug is testimony to all their efforts.
The UK rose to the challenge of the millennium bug. As one of the world leaders in the field, we successfully advised others on how to meet it and assisted them to do so. For that work, and that of all who made the celebrations possible and successful, we owe a debt of gratitude, and we have together earned the right to pride in what has been achieved.

Mr. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): I thank the right hon. Lady for the early notice that she gave me of this statement and for coming back to the House with a follow-up report on the millennium bug, as she promised to do in December. I join her in congratulating all those in the public and private sector on the work that they have done and the smooth transition that has followed.
Although the Leader of the House paid tribute to many of the organisations and individuals involved, I noted that she did not mention the fact that the project was begun by the previous Government. Given the generosity of her remarks, I hope that she will accept that I wish to pay tribute to those of my colleagues who were involved at an earlier stage in the preparations for that smooth transition.
I hope that the Leader of the House will recognise that, in the final phases of the preparations for the year 2000 change, we were pleased to receive the information that she supplied. That is especially true of the information that she shared with me personally, and I wish to place on record my thanks. The information was both helpful and constructive. I shall miss our exchanges across the Dispatch Box on the subject, but I am sure that there will be other occasions.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As she says, these exchanges will no longer take place, but they have been constructive and for the general good. As she will be aware from the briefings that we were able to share with her, because so little went wrong in practical terms, compared to what might have happened, the real danger—with the benefit of hindsight—that had to be overcome was a public reaction that might have caused problems that could otherwise have been avoided. The approach that was taken by Opposition Front Benchers under her stewardship was helpful in ensuring that we did not exacerbate a potentially difficult situation. I appreciate that assistance and I am happy to put that on record.
I accept that preparations began just about under the last Government, in July 1996. I am also happy to confirm that the potential impact of the date change was recognised much earlier and very fully by some Conservative Members, not least the hon. Member for Hexham, I think. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Bournemouth, East]. I am sorry, I mean the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). I have duff information which is the result of human error and nothing to do with the millennium bug. Several hon. Members from both Conservative and Labour parties, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr.

Miller), have long taken an interest in the issue and the Government appreciate the support that they gave in helping to raise awareness of potentially difficult problems and in ensuring that that was done in a way that did not create further unnecessary difficulties.

Dr. David Clark: I wish to add my thanks to both Front Bench teams for the way in which they have tried to co-operate to tackle the problem. I also wish to thank those who have worked so hard to make the transition appear so seamless. I urge my right hon. Friend robustly to reject the line of opportunists who have claimed, late in the day, that we have wasted vast amounts of public money, which was not the case. Will she also confirm that the management of the central Government Departments ensured that we took the opportunity to make large investments in upgrading to new IT technology? Not only did we overcome the problem of the millennium bug, but we have sound investment in IT for the next two to three years.

Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I hoped and anticipated that he would be here, as I want to pay considerable tribute to him. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was understandably anxious to gain credit for those Conservative Members who had taken some action on this matter, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) is very well aware of the great step change required by the programme and in the funding for it. He made that change within three weeks of the general election that brought this Government into office.
My right hon. Friend may not have spotted the fact in the information that has been made available, but he will be happy to learn that his initial forecast of the cost to central Government of dealing with the problem was accurate to within £10 million. That is because, contrary to early projections, a possible increase in the required expenditure has turned out not to be necessary. That is a rare example of an accurate forecast of the cost of such a project.
However, my right hon. Friend is also right to stress the value of the investment that has been made, and the potential dangers. British Nuclear Fuels plc had reported that fire alarm systems in some of our nuclear power plants were not compliant. It could have been very serious if an alarm had failed to work in the event of fire. My right hon. Friend will know that the United States Government took the trouble to keep running three non-compliant systems alongside the equipment that replaced them. All three of the non-compliant systems in that control group failed.

Mr. Richard Allan: The Leader of the House is right to praise IT staff in the United Kingdom across the board for their work on the project. However, as Chairman of the Information Committee, I should like to add my thanks to the many staff in Parliament who kept our systems running perfectly throughout the millennium period.
An IT professional commented to me yesterday that he thought that we should have a millennium bug every year—not to create work for staff in the IT sector, but because he said that the bug problem had forced reluctant


managements to modernise their systems in a way that they would not otherwise have done. The right hon. Lady was right to refer to the matter as a management issue.
Will the right hon. Lady consider building on the structures set up to deal with the millennium bug to ensure that all sectors are talking to each other as we move into a world increasingly dependent on IT, and in which IT systems are increasingly interdependent on each other?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Information Committee of the House. He and his colleagues were instrumental in examining what the House needed to do. I entirely share his view that, as always, the staff of the House deserve a great tribute from us for their work in keeping our systems going.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to identify some of the benefits that have emerged. The forced modernisation of systems is certainly a factor, but top managements across the developed world—and especially in countries such as our own—have been forced to engage with the questions of why and how they use IT, in a way that has not happened before. That has had considerable benefits already. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that part of the work now being undertaken is to identify and capture those benefits, for Government and across the wider economy.
A number of valuable lessons have been learned. For example, it appears that the extent of contact with small and medium-sized companies through the Government's information programme on this matter has been greater than in any previous programme.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. For the first time since I came to the House, a statement for which I asked at business questions one Thursday has been delivered the following one.
My right hon. Friend raised an important point in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) concerning the benefits that have been identified throughout the country. Would it not be helpful if Departments, when they make their reports, identified the benefits that have accrued to them, in terms both of the year 2000 issue and of the other managerial changes brought about as a result of the exercise?

Mrs. Beckett: I am glad to have been able to satisfy my hon. Friend's request on this occasion, but I hope that he will not take that as a precedent. It is not always so easy to arrange statements.
My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the need for Departments to work out and declare the benefits that have accrued to them, and to learn from them. That is exactly what we are seeking to encourage them to do.

Mr. David Atkinson: That this country has avoided problems so far is great credit to the right hon. Lady, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), Action 2000 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out, the previous Government, who established Task Force 2000 in response to my Adjournment debate in May 1996. However, will the right hon. Lady confirm that we are not yet out of the wood, since many computer

systems have yet to come up against a millennium computer date that they will not recognise, and since a special threat is still posed—a unique threat for this century—by leap-year day, 29 February. Will the right hon. Lady warn against complacency?

Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and I am grateful to him for his kind remarks about me. I suspect that we are all a great deal happier to share the credit today than we would have been had we had to share the blame instead. But that is fine—it is in the national interests as well as in ours.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are by no means out of the wood. Although I say that prioritisation and contingency planning worked—that is a very important lesson—and we have, as far as one can judge, avoided almost completely any impact that would cause problems for the public, the hon. Gentleman, and others in this House who have expertise and have been following the issue, will know that we have not avoided impact altogether. Hundreds of examples of problems—some of them quite serious in terms of running organisations—have occurred across the world and will have to be tackled. I have no doubt that many others will be uncovered.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are seeing something of a recurrence of a problem that he will recall from the very beginning. The greatest difficulty then was getting people to share information because their lawyers told them not to, apart from anything else. People who have problems do not necessarily tell the world about them so, while not encouraging the blame-game that exposes organisations that have had difficulties, we must ensure that they and others learn from them. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that problems will occur until the end of year at the very least, and people must be aware of that.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: May I also add my congratulations to everyone involved? Will my right hon. Friend's report give a Department-by-Department analysis of embedded chips and their cost and, if possible, put that information in the public domain?
Secondly, I echo some of the remarks that have already been made, in that neither this Government nor the previous one have, in the past 10 years, received plaudits for the way in which they bought and delivered computer systems. We are all guilty. The people who have has been involved in the preparations have clearly learned a huge amount. It would be great if my right hon. Friend's report could recommend that they take over the way in which computers are bought and designed, and systems put into place. That would stop a huge amount of waste. Will my right hon. Friend consider that?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and it is one of the issues that will have to be considered when the reports come in. I have taken note of his point about embedded chips. I have a feeling that we may have already asked Departments to do that, but I will make sure that his point is conveyed. There have been some comments in the press to the effect that, internationally, people did not bother to do things. A good example of latecomers benefiting from the experience of others is that people could identify where it really


mattered to search for embedded chips and where it was pretty unimportant. My hon. Friend is right to identify that as an area of work that needs to be covered.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Lady accept in retrospect that this is an illustration of both sides of the House coming together and of the House working at its best? The right hon. Lady said that there was no reason for undue alarm, although she could not hit the notion on the head entirely. However, people are suggesting that there will still be a major problem when we move from 00 to 01, at the end of this year and the start of the next. Will she analyse that in the report which she says that she will publish in February?

Mrs. Beckett: The report may well touch on those issues. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is one of the points at which there may be further problems, but everyone who has been involved with the project recognises that there will never be another crunch point when so many different occasions come together as did at new year. For those who think that this is not really the millennium and who have strong views about the technicalities, there may be great celebrations next year, but most of us will not be celebrating on quite the same scale. The combination of events exacerbated the scale of the problems and the difficulties of dealing with them.

Mr. Brian White: In her report, will my right hon. Friend take account of three lessons in particular? First, will she consider the international co-operation, particularly the presence of Russian officers at various centres over the new year? The same process should be repeated when other crises arise so that an exchange of information may continue. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) courageously decided to put a great deal of information into the public domain against the conventional wisdom. Will the Government learn lessons from that about the benefits of freedom of information and open government, and will my right hon. Friend bring the point to the Home Secretary's attention? Thirdly, will she take note of charlatans who continue to provoke doom and gloom long after corrective action that they had asked for has been taken?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friends the Members for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), took a great interest in the millennium bug and have followed things carefully. My hon. Friend is entirely right about international co-operation. The Government have received great credit across the Commonwealth because of the practical support and financial advice that we gave. He was correct, too, to say that the co-operation between the militaries of the United States and Russia was unprecedented, and I am confident that other benefits will arise.
My hon. Friend was also correct to refer to the risks taken, and the courage shown, by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. I have said many times that Britain was seen as a world leader on the millennium bug, among the principal reasons for which were our communication across the national infrastructure and our

putting information into the public domain. People, including the United States co-ordinator, went on the record to recognise the worth of that.
My hon. Friend will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares his view about the worth of releasing information, but is concerned to ensure that the proper balance is struck in decisions about how to release information. My hon. Friend was quite correct in his general remarks about the benefits arising from our handing of the matter and the likelihood of long-term knock-on effects.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Leader of the House rightly said that we owe a debt of gratitude to the teams of software writers who ensured that we did not endure a national disaster. Does she accept that many of them were freelancers? Does she realise that we face a second millennium bug when the Government impose IR35 on 5 April? Is she aware that that will drive thousands of software writers and other information technology experts out of the United Kingdom? Thank God we shall have no major millennium problem next year because, if we did, we would be unable to cope with it once the software writers had left this country to earn money abroad.

Mrs. Beckett: The nature of the millennium bug project and the degree to which it affected the national interest meant that few people tried to make party politics out of it. One exception was the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who, along with his many more unconstructive and, with the benefit of hindsight, entirely nonsensical remarks, demanded that I should take the blame for anything that went wrong over the millennium. The other exception is the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) —typical.

Mr. William Thompson: I, too, declare my interest in the subject and thank the public services for defeating the bug. Does the Leader of the House think that the experience gained over the past year will help to ensure that future IT programmes for the various Departments will be finished on time; will not cost far in excess of the original estimates; will be bug free; and will work?

Mrs. Beckett: Although I would be too cautious to say that that would be the case, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to state that those are the characteristics of the project and that they teach us some important lessons. The project can be achieved, if it is tackled in the right way—with the right objectives and management. Not only does that teach important lessons: it undermines the arguments of those who, on many other occasions, on many other IT projects, say that it is impossible to do those things. It is not impossible, if we get it right. The challenge to us all is to get those projects right in the future.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Those computer systems that were sensible enough to devote 11 bits to the date so as to allow four digits were resilient. However, doom and gloom will strike on 31 December 2048. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that she is working night and day in order to eliminate difficulties at that date?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He has now sensibly placed it in Hansard;


consequently, I am confident that it will be noted by the Government of the day—in which it is just possible I may not be serving. Let me acquaint him and the House with the fact that my report to the Prime Minister on this matter included the suggestion made to me that there may be knock-on effects when today's new-borns retire. Although I am aware that my right hon. Friend bows to no one in his regard for his children, or in his responsibilities as a father, I took the view that he might not be too worried about the pension of a child who is not yet born.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 24 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Disqualifications Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 25 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill.
Remaining stages of the Disqualifications Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 JANUARY—Progress on remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
THURSDAY 27 JANUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
FRIDAY 28 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I will give the House as much as I am able of the provisional business for the following week.
MONDAY 31 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Utilities Bill.
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Motions on Local Government (Finance) Reports. FRIDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I fear that, in the slight uncertainty occasioned by the changes in business that I had to announce last night, I am not able to identify today the business that will be taken in the middle of the week. However, the House will want to learn that, subject to the progress of business—I emphasise that point—I propose that the House should rise at the end of business on Tuesday 22 February and would not sit on 23, 24 and 25 February.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for the indication of the business for part of the following week. Although we welcome the announcement of what is not so much a constituency week but a constituency half-week, does the right hon. Lady agree that the value of such an announcement is enhanced the earlier that it can be made?
Will the right hon. Lady tell the House the date of the Budget? Will she tell us on which day next week there will be a statement by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the introduction of a new television tax?
In relation to today's business, I much regret that, at short notice last night, the Government decided to guillotine an important constitutional Bill. Although the Government put down motions to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the name of the Prime Minister, when we reach 10 o'clock, they turn into a pumpkin and go home. The Government appear to prefer to curtail debate rather than to engage in it. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it is vital that appropriate consideration is given to constitutional measures, even if it means sitting after 10 o'clock?
Would it not have been appropriate today to have a statement on the Wakeham report? Although we would not expect the Government to outline their policy, Members would have welcomed the opportunity to press


Ministers on timing. The Government are more interested in gesture than reform on this matter and, having urged Lord Wakeham to make haste, they now appear anxious to delay. Can we have an early debate so that we can press the Government on the timing and membership of a Joint Committee and on progress with the promised independent statutory appointments commission to end the Prime Minister's patronage of the second Chamber, which Lord Wakeham condemned?
After the Home Secretary's performance last week, when his decision on Pinochet was issued to the press before any announcement was made to the House, can we have an assurance that there will be no repeat of that discourtesy and that, when he reaches his final decision, the House will be the first to hear it?

Mrs. Beckett: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that the value of the non-sitting days in February—or indeed of any non-sitting days—is greatly enhanced if the House has early notice of them. I regret that it has not been possible to give more notice, but he will know fully the reasons for that.
I cannot yet give the right hon. Gentleman the date of the Budget, but I hope to do so shortly, and I hope that that is helpful.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he regretted that a statement is not being made on the Wakeham report. I remind him that the report, which is a royal commission report to the Government, has barely been published, so it is a little early to make a statement. He suggested that the Government are more interested in gesture than reform. That comes fine from a member of a party that was not interested in reform at all and now shows every sign of being torn between gesture and reform. The Government are not anxious to delay. I can only say to the right hon. Gentleman that, when people have had an opportunity to consider the report, we shall decide what to say in the House.
The right hon. Gentleman is of course right to say that Lord Wakeham made observations about patronage, but it is a little churlish of him not to recognise that this Prime Minister is the first in history to be prepared to diminish his patronage by one jot. Not one Tory Prime Minister was ever prepared to do so. Indeed, recent Conservative Prime Ministers used their powers of patronage to stack the other place with Tory peers to bolster their numbers among hereditary peers.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned last night's decision on a guillotine. He knows perfectly well that that was on an important constitutional Bill, and the Government share his view on that, which is why we are putting forward a timetabling motion to provide an opportunity for discussion on the Bill. It is right that important constitutional matters should be fully debated. However, the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that last night's debate concerned issues such as the use of the words "temporary" and "verifiable" in a Bill. I do not think that anyone who was here last night—

Mr. Eric Forth: The right hon. Lady was not here.

Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman, who speaks from a sedentary position, is entirely right to say that I

was not in the Chamber—although I was in the House—and I am profoundly thankful for that since I did not have to listen to him wasting the time of the House.
On Pinochet, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is not quite correct; the Government did not make an announcement to the press first. The Chilean embassy released information to the press and the Government then had to acknowledge whether it was correct. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it plain that he had every intention of making that announcement in the proper way in the House. He will come to the House when he has a further announcement to make on that matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Leaving aside Pinochet's defenders and apologists on the Conservative Benches, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Home Secretary will make his statement before Pinochet leaves the country, if his decision is that he should leave?
While we are on the subject of those held responsible for crimes against humanity, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend about the person featured in today's newspapers, particularly The Guardian, who is said to have been a concentration camp murderer during the war. Is there to be a statement about him?

Mrs. Beckett: First, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House when he has had the opportunity to consider the representations that have been made to him. He will then make a full statement to Parliament. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend's attention.
On the issue that has been reported in today's press, my hon. Friend will know that it is a new report, which is being considered. It will be a matter for the police to investigate what offence, if any, has been committed. That will be the basis of any decision about prosecution that is made by the relevant authorities.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I endorse the request for an early statement—I appreciate that it cannot be made in the next few hours, but it could be made in the next few days—on the Government's attitude to the Wakeham report and, particularly, to the timetable for any implementation of the proposals? Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Government recognise that an interim, transitory arrangement for the composition of the other place would not be satisfactory on a long-term basis? It would leave everyone with a considerable period of doubt and indecision, which is unsavoury in a settled constitution.
May I ask two questions about next week's business? First, I know that the Government are making arrangements for amendments to the Disqualifications Bill to be tabled in advance of its Second Reading on Monday. However, it is profoundly unsatisfactory to have Second Reading and then so little time before the Bill's remaining stages. We shall not even be able to take into account Ministers' statements on Second Reading to ensure that we have tabled the right amendments for the remaining stages on the very next day. Will the right hon. Lady please try to avoid that in future? It may not be such a controversial Bill, but some Members think that it is. We face a profoundly unsatisfactory way of dealing with the business of the House.
Secondly, on the Financial Services and Markets Bill which will come before us on Wednesday, will the right hon. Lady tell us what progress she has made with Conservative representatives in trying to reach agreement on a programme motion? It is surely the type of Bill that requires such a motion. Even in the light of the ridiculous shenanigans of last night, I hope that she still has some opportunity to talk to her opposite numbers on the Conservative Front Bench, so that we can agree on how to handle the business of the House more satisfactorily.

Mrs. Beckett: First, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman was here last night, and I recognise his remarks about the Wakeham report. The whole House is grateful to Lord Wakeham and his colleagues for their hard work and for meeting what was described by others as too tight a deadline. The report has been published for only two hours or so, but its publication is noteworthy because, as I understand it, it is a unanimous report. I hope that that will mean that it will lay the foundations for a reasonable degree of common ground to emerge. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have always held and expressed the view that, following the publication of the royal commission report, there might be a broad acceptance of some of the principles that it has set out. That might make the way forward rather smoother, but it is too early to say whether that will be the case.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Disqualifications Bill. He is right—I am grateful to him for allowing me to put it on the record again—to say that the Government are making arrangements to ensure that amendments can be tabled and that Members do not lose that opportunity. We would not usually wish to make such arrangements, but he will be aware that we are bringing the position with regard to Ireland and Irish Members into line with that which exists for some other legislatures. In that sense, we are not making a major decision and it is not in any way without precedent. The precedent is that this different arrangement is in line with that for other legislatures. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point entirely.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about progress on a programme motion for the Financial Services and Markets Bill. He will know that programme motions are always on offer from the Government. We very much share the view that was expressed at the outset of this Parliament by the all-party Modernisation Committee, of which he is a member, on the worth of programme motions. They offer a way of ensuring that key parts of legislation are discussed and not overlooked because the House has got bogged down—sometimes for sound reasons and sometimes not—on more minor issues. Up to now, it has been suggested that a programme motion is not necessary because there is agreement on how we handle the Bill and deal with business expeditiously to ensure that the issues that are identified as being of major importance are fully dealt with. It may be that we shall need a few further discussions on the matter, and we are certainly prepared to undertake them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time that the Modernisation Committee considered urgently the use of, and the need for, more programme motions? Does she agree also that it is troubling that the shadow Leader of the House talks about more predictability, the problem of not knowing

when the February half week is and the importance of knowing the nature of other business? Yet he still condones not having a planned agenda for the House, which would allow everyone to know what business will be discussed and when. We are wasting not only our time, but the valuable time of civil servants and the employees of the House when we are discussing et cetera ad nauseam.

Madam Speaker: is the hon. Lady asking for a debate on the matter?

Lorna Fitzsimons: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Like the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), she is a member of the Modernisation Committee. She will know that the issue of whether we are making the use of programme motions, as anticipated by the Committee, has been raised on quite a few occasions on the Floor of the House, and increasingly so in recent times. However, she is entirely right to raise the matter. It may be that as we are keeping under review the Committee's recommendations, which were made before I was a member of it, perhaps the matter that she has raised should be put on the agenda to ascertain whether we are implementing even the spirit, or the letter, of any of the recommendations.

Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not surprising and regrettable that, given all the interviews and briefings that have already taken place, no statement is being made today about change in the House of Lords? I press on the Leader of the House the urgency of a debate on the future of the House of Lords. I hope that she recognises that there will be some in the House who do not want to see a new political establishment formed of appointers and appointees, and would much prefer to have a fully elected second Chamber.

Mrs. Beckett: I am surprised to hear someone of the right hon. Gentleman's experience and seriousness making such a point. I have seldom heard a more ludicrous suggestion that the Government should make a statement about a report that they have not drawn up and that was correctly not given to them in advance. The right hon. Gentleman talks about briefings as if they are being given by Ministers. Of course they are not. Ministers are not members of the royal commission. It is the royal commission that is briefing on its report to the Government. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government should make a statement when there has not been time to assimilate it.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman talks about his opposition to what he calls a new political establishment. His zeal for reform has overtaken him only since the Conservative party lost the enormity of the majority that it previously enjoyed in the House of Lords. It still has a majority there, but no one would think so to hear the way that Conservative Members talk about it.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the person against whom war crimes have been alleged on the front page of The Guardian is resident in my constituency? I add to what was said earlier and urge


her to ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on this matter, and particularly on whether the Crown Prosecution Service, in the light of the new evidence, will consider again whether a prosecution should be proceeded with under the War Crimes Act 1991.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. She will appreciate that we are talking about early reports. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will yet have had the opportunity to come to a decision on whether there is a matter on which he needs to make a statement. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention, especially her observations about the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding the Leader of the House's failure to explain the Government's lack of response, even at an early stage, to the Wakeham Committee's recommendations, will she give an undertaking that the Government will respond next week, if only to underline the urgency of the matter and to explain the Government's intentions for the next stage of the process? The people of this country should know the shape of their legislature before the next election. Otherwise, the impression will be given that the Government are prevaricating because the Prime Minister wants to perpetuate the position whereby he appoints Members of one of the Houses of Parliament.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly not undertake to make a statement next week. As for the rubbish about one of the Houses being appointed by the Prime Minister, I point out that eight Prime Ministers have contributed to the life membership of the House of Lords, and that 90 or so hereditary peers remain there. The Conservative party retains a majority over the Labour party in the House of Lords. I do not believe that that represents the views of most people in this country.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate, or a statement, on the job losses that have been announced in the water industry throughout the country, including in Severn Trent, which is in my area? At the same time, the water companies are announcing record profits and record dividend payments to their shareholders.

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot promise an early statement on the matter, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend who has responsibility for the water industry. The water regulator has said that his proposals do not require the industry to make such changes. Every time the water industry has been required to take steps about which it is unhappy, it has threatened job losses. The public will find its actions hard to understand.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 294.
[That this House is appalled by the Muslim-Christian conflict in the Moluccas, Indonesia; notes that over 1,500 people have died since the violence began in January 1999;

is deeply concerned by reports that the Indonesian military have often taken sides in the conflict instead of attempting to restore order; and calls on the British Government to press for urgent UN intervention in the Moluccas to end the bloodshed and to closely link the European Union arms embargo and suspension of IMF assistance to Indonesia to the Indonesian Government and military's conduct over the Moluccas.]
Had I followed the advice of the Leader of the House last week, I would have incurred your wrath, Madam Speaker, by trying to raise the matter in Foreign Office questions although it was not on the Order Paper. I plead again for an early statement on Indonesia. Not only are people dying unnecessarily there, but a democratic Government could be overthrown by conspiracy between elements of the army and some fanatic Islamic fundamentalists. It is a potential tragedy.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Although the matter is under consideration, I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made about Indonesia, which is arousing considerable international anxiety. We are exploring ways of assisting reconciliation in that unhappy country. I hope that the events that the hon. Gentleman suggests may happen will not come about.

Mr. Syd Rapson: I want to return to the sad position at the end of business last night. I support the Opposition's right to deploy the tactics that are at their disposal, just as we used the guillotine. However, many hon. Members from the 1997 intake are less tolerant of such procedures. If my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider more timetabling, or tactics that will enhance the business of the House, a willing group of us will fully support her.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his offer of support. Of course, it is the right of the Opposition and the Government to use the tools that are at their disposal. I have always believed that the public do not understand when we spend a great deal of time discussing matters that are of no importance and complain that we have no time to consider important issues. I have always deplored that tactic, and never practised it, even during the long years we spent in opposition. It brings this place into disrepute with the public. My hon. Friend is right to say that that, from time to time, successive Governments have had to take action to resolve a growing problem that causes difficulties.

Sir Peter Emery: Does the Leader of the House accept that motion 6 on the Order Paper today dealing with the Disqualifications Bill is a procedural disgrace? Not enough time has been arranged between Second Reading and Committee for amendments to be tabled in the proper way. That is not acceptable from the Leader of the House, who leads the Select Committee on Modernisation, which urges that there should be full and proper consideration of all legislation.
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement next week by one of the Law Officers about the potential closure of smaller magistrates courts? In parts of Devon, people will have to travel 20, 30 or 40 miles to go to


court. It is not acceptable for working courts such as that at Axminster to be closed. There must be a statement about that from a Law Officer.

Mrs. Beckett: The issue of time has been raised. The Government recognise that the two stages are somewhat close together, but we have made arrangements to tackle that. From time to time, it is necessary to make such decisions, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware.
The right hon. Gentleman also asks me about smaller magistrates courts. I draw his attention to the fact that there is an Adjournment debate on that matter in Westminster Hall next Tuesday. The debate has been raised by one of his hon. Friends, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), so the right hon. Gentleman will have to take the matter up with that hon. Member. Although I cannot promise to bring the Law Officers to the House, we will have questions to the Law Officers in the near future.

Maria Eagle: After the obnoxious tactics adopted yesterday by hard-line Conservative opponents of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, will my right hon. Friend assure the Bill's many supporters in the House and all those outside this place who abhor cruelty to animals that she will arrange for a Second Reading debate on that Bill as soon as possible?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It was plain—indeed, it was admitted by at least one offender last night—that the tactics deployed yesterday had nothing whatever to do with the importance of the Representation of the People Bill or the time required for it. My hon. Friend is also right to say that many people will deplore and fail to understand those tactics. I assure her that the Government will make sure that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill reaches the statute book. It was yet another crass misjudgment on the part of the Opposition.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the Member for Macclesfield, which lies in the north-west, may I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 279, entitled "Location of the national athletics stadium".
[That this House notes the complete failure of the proposed National Athletics Stadium at Wembley; notes that the Commonwealth Stadium in Manchester could be altered at relatively little cost to meet the specifications for a national stadium; urges the Government to give full consideration to any bid by Manchester to host the National Stadium; and believes such consideration would demonstrate the Government's commitment to the regions outside London.]?
In the light of the failure of the project at Wembley, is the Leader of the House aware that there is a strong feeling across the party political spectrum, particularly in the north-west and in Greater Manchester, that the stadium could be located in the city of Manchester, and that it could be provided at very little cost to the British taxpayer? Will she assure the House that a Minister, preferably the Minister for Sport, will make a statement in the House within the next few days on the matter, giving an assurance that the Government will give serious consideration to the interests of Manchester and the construction of the stadium in that area? That would be

widely supported and would show that the Government were not entirely obsessed with London and the south-east.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman is the Member for Macclesfield, through which I passed on Thursday on my way to the north-west, including Manchester, where my ear was bent about Manchester's urgent desire to have the athletics stadium.
As a native of that part of the world, I recognise that Manchester is undoubtedly the capital of the universe and that that status is not properly represented. [Interruption] I am saying that not only because I am being heckled by the Deputy Chief Whip from a sedentary position. I am well aware of the pressure across the party political spectrum. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are also aware of it. I cannot undertake to ensure the decision that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I shall draw his request for a statement on the matter to their attention.

Mr. John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will recall that shortly before Christmas Opposition Members complained loudly that business had collapsed early a number of times that week. That happens for only one reason—they are not doing their job properly, which did not happen when we were in opposition. Last night, the situation was almost the reverse as they engaged in tactics that brought no credit whatever to the House. I want a debate on modernisation and the procedures of the House so that they can explain their apparent inconsistencies.

Mrs. Beckett: As always, my hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is certainly right about the inconsistency that is so frequently displayed by Conservative Members, but I fear that, if we were to try to find time to debate it every time it manifests itself, we would not have time to do anything else.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady may be aware of a letter that I have written to the Secretary of State for Social Security about winter fuel payments to males. She may also be aware that men in Lincolnshire aged between 60 and 65 who have applied for winter fuel payments appear to have been told that the infrastructure is not in place to make any payments, notwithstanding the ruling of the European Court. If that be true, it is unsatisfactory. Will she therefore arrange either an early debate or a statement on the matter? On another issue, is it not unsatisfactory that Monday's opposed private business is fixed for 7 o'clock and therefore likely to truncate debate on the very important Disqualifications Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised the issue of winter fuel payments. He will be aware, too, that we shall comply with the decision of the European Court, but it is quite recent and I understand that it will take time to register all those who are newly eligible. We have every intention of making the backdated payments as soon as possible and obviously the infrastructure for that has to be dealt with. He also made a point about the Disqualifications


Bill. He will know that it is the norm for such opposed private business to be taken at 7 o'clock and that how business proceeds is a matter for the House.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In the hope that I am on a winning streak with my right hon. Friend, may I bring to her attention the positive remarks made by the assistant chief constable of Cheshire on Government policy on closed circuit television? Will she consider early-day motion 283—which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), other Welsh Members and myself—on the successful use of technology in solving crime.
[That this House congratulates Dyfed and Powys, Gwent and South Wales constabularies, which by collaboration made a number or arrests in the second week of January including an alleged persistent young offender, following the use of new technology currently under trial developed by 2B Research and BT; recognises that the arrests took place within a short period of time due in the main to the use of PNIP, retrieving information from neighbouring forces; and calls upon the Home Secretary to consider a national application of this system.]
Can we have an early debate on the Government's approach to improving technology to help the police in their difficult task?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing to my attention the remarks of the assistant chief constable. He will know that the Government are investing about £153 million over the next three years on CCTV schemes. We believe that that method of crime prevention is very much what the public want, although I fear I cannot undertake to have an early debate on the matter. I acknowledge the remarks made by my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and others about the use and value of new technology in this area and the Government will continue to pursue such steps to reduce the impact of crime.

Sir David Madel: The Government are always saying that they want more public support for what they are doing and their legislation to pass through the House smoothly. Given the amount of controversial legislation that we are dealing with, can we have an assurance that no more controversial Bills will be introduced this Session, apart from the Finance Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: It is becoming increasingly difficult to define what some Members—excepting the hon. Gentleman and, frequently, Conservative Front Benchers—think of as controversial. Indeed, that is not always possible to identify, and it seems to take hours to deal with matters that were non-controversial until they reached their final minutes in the House. I cannot give him quite the undertaking he seeks, but I can certainly tell him that the Government shall continue to introduce the programme that was outlined in the Queen's Speech, which we believe is the programme that the public want.

Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on early-day motion 2?
[That this House applauds the Government's intention to ensure that all pensioners entitled to income support receive it, making it a genuine minimum income

guarantee; notes that, although the minimum income guarantee was introduced in April 1999, the promised national programme of measures to maximise take-up is still awaited; and urges the Secretary of State for Social Security to announce that claims made by pensioners after the date of that announcement will be treated as having been made on that date and that arrears of benefit will be paid accordingly.]
The motion, which was signed by 63 Members, seeks a take-up campaign for the poorest pensioners.
The situation is urgent. According to the Government's figures, 700,000 of the poorest pensioners are losing, on average, £18.18 a week. Action was promised in July 1998 by the Secretary of State for Social Security, who said that data matching would begin in April 1999, but nothing has happened. I was told yesterday in a written answer that action would be taken in the future, but no date could be given.
Early-day motion 2 asks for all the backdated money lost by pensioners to be repaid when action is taken. The pensioners lost the money not through any fault of their own, but through the fault of Government, and it would be wrong for it to be pocketed by the Treasury.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the continuing problem involving claims at the lower levels, especially claims by pensioners. Like me, he has deplored it for a long time. The Government try to encourage take-up, and will continue to do so: indeed, the minimum income guarantee, which is earnings-linked, is intended to encourage pensioners to claim.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. As he will know, the legislation provides for payment to be backdated to the point at which the claim was made. My hon. Friend will also know that the problem has been going on for decades, and was not solved or even tackled by the Conservatives. It would be difficult to set a precedent by backdating payment to the point at which a claim might have been made. Nevertheless, I endorse my hon. Friend's basic point, which is that many people—the oldest, the frailest and those in most need of financial support—remain reluctant to claim. It is the responsibility of all Members to do all that we can to encourage them to do so.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: In a week in which talks with Pakistan about the arms trade have resumed and the embargo on the arms trade with Indonesia—which is very unstable—has been lifted, and on a day on which we have heard that Hawk jets are to be sold to Zimbabwe, which is engaged in a severe civil war throughout sub-Saharan Africa, it is obvious that the Government have dropped the ethical dimension to their foreign policy. Can we please have an urgent debate on the effect of the arms trade on foreign policy?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady has drawn on a number of examples. She will know that the embargo on arms sales to Indonesia was for a fixed period, and has expired rather than being specifically lifted. Indeed, it was introduced largely on our initiative following the problems in East Timor.
I do not accept that the Government have abandoned an ethical dimension to their foreign policy. In comparison with those who accept that there is legitimacy


in some arms sales, those who oppose all arms sales are, in a sense, on an easy wicket. There will always be matters of difficulty and dispute.
I fear that I cannot promise the hon. Lady an urgent statement, but I will draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: As my right hon. Friend knows, we should have been discussing the Electronic Communications Bill this afternoon. We shall now be doing that next week, thanks to the disgraceful behaviour of the lunatic fringe on the Conservative Benches. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government still intend the legislation to be the first Act of the new millennium? If so, can she also assure me that she will deploy all the tools that the Government have at their disposal to ensure that the Bill makes progress next week?

Mrs. Beckett: The Government have every intention of ensuring that the Bill makes progress next week. Hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that it is important legislation and not party politically controversial. Therefore, we are all entitled to hope that it will reach the statute book in the ordinary way. As to whether it will be the first Act of the millennium, I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity to check.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I urge the Leader of the House to have a two-day debate on defence the week after next on the Tuesday and Wednesday, which in the current programme remain fallow? If she does not hold an early debate on defence, the view that is prevalent in the country that the Government are not interested in defence, with our troops living in tents in Kosovo and the Royal Air Force some 20 per cent. short of fighter pilots, will be heightened.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's last point is particularly extraordinary as it takes more than a couple of years to train a fighter pilot, so, if there is a fighter pilot shortage, the blame cannot be laid at the door of the present Government. [Interruption.] It was not us. That is a simple fact.
The hon. Gentleman asks for a two-day debate next week. I cannot undertake to provide time for that next week, although I certainly take on board his remarks. The Government are conscious of the need to find time for the defence debates. It is untrue that there is no interest. Indeed, it is perhaps because rather too much interest was taken in, for example, the defence White Paper that it came in late.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move on.

BILLS PRESENTED

UTILITIES

Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Murphy, Mr. Secretary Darling and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment and functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, the Telecommunications Authority, the Telecommunications Consumer Council, the Water Advisory Panel and the Consumer Council for Water; to amend the legislation regulating the telecommunications, gas, electricity and water industries; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory Notes to be printed [Bill 49].

ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS (EUROPEAN UNION MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the costs and benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 January, and to be printed [Bill 50].

Points of Order

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I wonder whether you, or Madam Speaker, have received any indication from the Prime Minister that he intends to come to the House to make a statement to clear up the confusion following his statement on the health service and its contradiction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is it not important that the House should learn whether there is even a semblance of coherence in Government health policy sooner rather than later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a point of order. We have had no notification from the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. About five or six of us have waited 40 minutes to put a business question—in my case, to follow up on vibration white finger, which was raised last week. Why were questions on the business statement cut short?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows far better than me that, when we finish a statement and go on to the main business, is at the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the news in today's papers of £10 billion-worth of extra burdens on local businesses, I was wondering whether you had received a report that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was to make an emergency statement to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not received such a request.

Mr. Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to column 945 in the Official Report of 19 January, where your colleague, the Chairman of Ways and Means, ruled that there had been no filibustering during the proceedings and debate? May I also draw your attention to the fact that on "Yesterday in Parliament" this morning, it was asserted as a statement of fact by a BBC correspondent that there had been filibustering? Is that not an intolerable misrepresentation of what happened in the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is certainly not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman may wish to take it up with the BBC.

Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill—

Timetable

1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2. — (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Proceedings under paragraph 2 above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

4. If at this day's sitting proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings on the Bill are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the Bill.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of the proceedings on this Motion or on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Yesterday, a handful of Conservative Members delayed parliamentary business on the Representation of the People Bill, not because they really objected to the Bill, but because they wanted to avoid debating the Fur


Farming (Prohibition) Bill. They were reluctant to argue their case on that Bill because their party was divided and the opinions of Conservative Back Benchers were out of touch with those of the country. The Representation of the People Bill was disrupted because of their moral cowardice on another Bill.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that it is a point of order.

Mr. Fabricant: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—you will know that I do not raise points of order that are out of order. However, is it in order for the Minister to imply that I—who was one of the four hon. Members interested in the issues debated last night—oppose the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, when I do not? Is that not a gross slander?

Mr. James Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I shall have a point of order one day, but, so far, I have not had one today. I tell the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) that the Minister and other hon. Members will make their speeches in their own way, and that it will be for him to try to rebut the case that they make.

Mr. Gray: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not speak while I am on my feet; it is very bad manners. Does he have a point of order? He cannot make a point further to the previous point, because it was not a point of order.

Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last night, your colleague, the occupant of the Chair, ruled that no filibustering had occurred. Just now, the Minister said that there had been filibustering, contrary to the ruling of the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the Minister say that.

Mr. O'Brien: The intervention by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) demonstrated that he is contradicting some of the other Conservative Members who spoke last night. Conservative Members are going in every direction on the issue. That is the very point that I was making, and that is what they were seeking to disguise from the public.
The truth is that the Representation of the People Bill was disrupted because of Conservative Members' moral cowardice on another Bill. Their behaviour yesterday was an abuse of the House. If we are properly to conduct business, we need a guillotine on the Representation of the People Bill.
As Madam Speaker and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, often make clear, members of the public watch proceedings in the House, and they want parliamentary

business conducted with dignity. Yesterday, they saw a handful of Opposition Members making deliberately long-winded, discursive speeches. On no fewer than 19 occasions, the Deputy Speaker had to intervene, calling Opposition Members to order as they wandered through the highways and byways of the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way shortly.
The Bill has broad parliamentary support, and Conservative Front Benchers agree with most, if not all, of its provisions. I believe that the Government have the support of the House to ensure that the Bill's passage is concluded.
I think that I am able now safely to make one prediction: in the speeches that follow this one, we shall hear much synthetic anger from Conservative Members. Last night, in response to the business statement, in an extraordinary display of hyperbole, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said that a guillotine would
damage the very fabric of our parliamentary democracy." — [Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 938.]
Let us put aside the histrionics, not to say the hysterics, and consider the facts. The Bill is an agreed Bill, giving effect to the recommendations of a working party that itself was the product of a consensus. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes the view that the fact that a Conservative representative was on the working party is of no relevance to him, and it is perhaps a sign of the state of today's Conservative party that he disowns his party so easily.

Mr. Brady: I deeply resent the Minister's implication. Earlier today, the Leader of the House mentioned the debate on the definition of "temporary" unemployment and the short, but very civilised discussions that I had with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on proposed change to the law. I did not make a speech on the issue, although I could have done, but chose to address it in brief interventions on the Minister. Conservative Members are trying to improve legislation, as it is our duty to do, and I strongly resent the Minister's implication that we were doing anything other than that.

Mr. O'Brien: As we proceed, I shall show how few Opposition Members were prepared to make speeches in debate of what they now claim to be such an important Bill.
The working party's recommendations were published in July, and there has been plenty of time for everyone to consider them. I therefore hope that we shall hear no canards about the Bill being rushed through with indecent haste. It has been the subject of wide consultation and full opportunity for debate.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: This must be the last time.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister is showing signs of not knowing his elbow from his posterior in parliamentary


terms. Does he not recognise that, if more right hon. and hon. Members had made speeches, the debate would have been even longer, causing him to complain even more? Will he accept what should be clear beyond peradventure—that many hon. Members regarded features of the Bill as ill-considered, confused and, in some cases, downright stupid? Why does he not grow up and stop impugning the integrity of right hon. and hon. Members?

Mr. O'Brien: The way in which the debate was conducted yesterday was clear for all to see, including members of the public who were watching. At times, very few could be bothered to come to listen to the long, discursive speeches conducted by some Conservative Members. They will know what was going on.
We had a full and constructive Second Reading debate on 30 November last year. The Committee stage began on 15 December, after the regulation interval between stages. We agreed to the Conservatives' request to take the Bill on the Floor of the House because they said that it was a constitutional measure. Constitutional Bills have been guillotined before, regardless of whether this Bill falls into that category. Conservative Members no doubt recall with discomfort the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1986, when the Lord President of the Council, Mr. John Biffen, pointed out when moving the guillotine motion that six constitutional Bills had been timetabled since 1966. The Bill is not controversial in the sense of most constitutional Bills, and we have had very few Divisions on it. I also refer Conservative Members to other guillotines that their party imposed on 14 January 1985 and 25 February 1997.
After three days of debate—

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I had said that I would not give way again, but I shall give way to the right hon. Lady—how could I refuse her?

Miss Widdecombe: Does the Minister agree that it is when there is agreement between the parties that Bills should be examined minutely? That is the time when Back Benchers in particular should have an opportunity to give a Bill a close examination. Is that not a good principle?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady is being disingenuous. She knows well from her long experience in the House the difference between a proper examination of a Bill and a deliberate attempt to disrupt the proceedings of the House. That is what was going on yesterday.
The Bill is not controversial in the sense of most constitutional Bills. That should be made clear to the public who watch proceedings in the House. For much of the time, only a handful of Conservative Members have bothered to appear. At times, there have been only two Tories in the Chamber. On the second day of consideration in Committee, only two Back Benchers made full and proper speeches. On the third day of consideration in Committee, only four Back Benchers made full speeches. We had three days of debate in

Committee to allow for the fullest possible discussion of the Bill. On the second day, the Government suspended the 10 o'clock rule and on the third day—a Thursday—the Government suspended the 7 o'clock rule. On the first two days of consideration in Committee, we did not hear any contributions from the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) or for Bromley and Chislehurst. I do not believe that they were even in the Chamber on those two days. We shall bear that in mind if either of them decides to make protestations about their deep and abiding interest in the Bill.
I accept that the Report stage came soon after the Committee stage, but the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), from the Opposition Front Bench, said:
The Opposition do not object to scheduling Report stage for Monday".— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 306.]
It was later put back two days to give an extra opportunity for amendments to be tabled. The Opposition clearly did not object to the timetable.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced a week ago that all the remaining stages of the Bill were due to be taken yesterday. There was not a single objection or suggestion that that provided inadequate time.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not disagreeing with what the Minister has said about the timetable, but will he confirm that the Government originally proposed the remaining stages for Monday but, as a result of representations that there should be a longer gap, the timetable was changed by two days, which at least gave us some time between consideration in Committee and the remaining stages? That was far preferable to the original Government plan, which would have been unacceptable to hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. O'Brien: I accept that there was a discussion between the usual channels, and that agreement was reached on the way in which we should proceed—an agreement which was broken by at least some Conservative Back Benchers yesterday.
What we witnessed yesterday was a disgrace. We can get into a semantic discussion about whether we should use the "F" word to describe it, but let us be quite clear. During yesterday's deliberations on this Bill, certain Opposition Members were deliberately wasting time.
Doubtless, an Opposition Member will try to advance the argument that it could not have been a filibuster as the Deputy Speaker would have ruled anything of the kind out of order. The fact that the Deputy Speaker was obliged to intervene on Conservative Members straying out of order on no fewer than 19 occasions speaks for itself. Back Benchers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who had tabled important amendments and who had regularly attended the Committee, had to listen to a few Tory Members delay, dissemble and dissipate the parliamentary timetable.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is trying to gain a reputation in this Parliament as "the beast of Bromley", but he is a poor substitute for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), without the wit. I was going to comment on his colleague, the


right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who normally sits at the right hon. Gentleman's feet, but I will refrain as he is not in the Chamber.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has had his comeuppance today. The Conservatives have only themselves to blame for this guillotine—or, rather, the handful of Back Benchers who delayed the House's business yesterday. If Opposition Members had had to sit, as I did, and listen to the tedious repetitious rhetoric yesterday, they would have turned their ire in the direction that it belongs—on to their Back-Bench colleagues.
This is an important Bill, and there are still important amendments relating to it to be discussed. It should be possible to deal with all of them in the time that remains. Whether that proves possible will, I suspect, depend on the attitude taken by Opposition Members.
If, as they claim, the Opposition are really interested in this Bill, they will accept the allocation of time motion and let us get on with discussing the Bill. If, on the other hand, they decide to treat us to grandiloquent speeches on the motion before us, their professed interest in this Bill will be exposed as a sham. We shall see.
The Bill will play an important part in modernising our democratic institutions, and it deserves both the support of the House and proper consideration. I invite the House now to ensure that that happens by supporting the motion.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister asked us to look at the facts, so let us do so. He says also that the Bill deserves proper consideration, and I believe that it does.
On the first day of the Committee, 15 December 1999, we had a statement by the Leader of the House on millennium compliance and questions on the business statement. That lasted for one hour. On the second day, 12 January, we had a statement on Senator Pinochet and a statement on homosexuality in the armed forces. That meant that we did not start the Committee until 5.17 pm. On the third day, 13 January, we had business questions. Yesterday's Report stage was preceded by a statement on the Patten report and a ten-minute rule Bill, which meant that we did not start until 5.7 pm. That left us with under five hours to discuss Report and Third Reading.
In Committee, important speeches were made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on extending the franchise to other Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens residing in the UK—some 850,000 people. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke on lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and we had an impressive, but lengthy, contribution from the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), which lasted almost half an hour. There were shorter contributions from the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). The whole debate took one and a half hours.
We had a debate on multiple entry on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, and a similar measure was discussed by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton). The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) spoke on overseas voters—a speech that extended into the second day, even though those measures were being dealt with in another Bill. There was a contribution also from the hon. Member

for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). We had a debate on the proof of elector—particularly as the provisions are being extended to the homeless—because, under the Bill as it stands, no is proof necessary.
Another, important, debate took place on whether to shorten the time during which postal votes would be made available, on an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea with which we had great sympathy. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the exclusion of names from the register and referred specifically to Jill Dando, and the problem of battered wives and their appearance on the register.
The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire tabled an amendment that would have given powers to the electoral registration officer to encourage those who are not on the register to put themselves forward for inclusion, and we had great sympathy with that amendment. We had a lengthy debate on clause 9, with contributions from the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire and for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I suspect that other hon. Members have—as I have—received several letters from charities and commercial organisations that will be affected if clause 9 remained unamended.
The Minister was reassuring on several of the amendments that were tabled in Committee. Indeed, only two votes took place, once when the Liberal Democrats pressed their amendment on lowering the voting age from 18 to 16 and the other on clause 9 and the tick box on the electoral form to signify a wish not to be included on a commercial register.
Last night, the House—certainly at least the Conservatives—were prepared to sit past 10 o'clock to continue the Report stage and Third Reading. We were taken aback by the fact that yesterday's business also included two Second Readings. Several of my hon. Friends have great sympathy with the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and would have wished for sufficient time to consider it properly.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I was a supporter of the private Member's Bill on fur farming in the previous Session and I was here last night ready to speak on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. I fully expected to be able to do so, albeit in the early hours of this morning. I had no objection to waiting until that time, but it is surprising that the Government are unable to keep their Back Benchers here after 10 o'clock and persistently fail to move the 10 o'clock motion.

Mr. Evans: I can only concur with my hon. Friend's comments, because several of my colleagues wished to support that Bill. The Minister should talk to his business managers to ensure that the House is never again treated in such a contemptuous fashion, with two Second Readings following the continuation of the Report stage and Third Reading of an important constitutional measure.
We know that the Government want the legislation quickly, but we want it right. This is an important constitutional Bill and many amendments have yet to be discussed. We are being asked to constrain our discussions to three hours and that will not be enough time to do justice to amendments tabled by both Conservative and Labour Members.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will be privy to information to which others of us do not have access. Is


he aware of any pressure from the Government Whips to ensure that the admirable speeches by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) were cut short? If no such attempt was made, is it not a little rich for the Government now to complain that we have made too leisurely progress?

Mr. Evans: I am not aware that the Government Whips put any pressure on the right hon. and hon. Members mentioned by my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Member for Watford was encouraged to speak at length. As for the right hon. Member for Gorton, it became apparent that the content of his amendment would be covered by another Bill, and he could therefore have concluded his remarks forthwith. I am afraid that a lot of time was wasted discussing that amendment.
The Minister agrees that this is an important constitutional Bill and that it deserves time for proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House. Although there is much agreement among the parties about the thrust of the Bill, that does not mean that there is no need for proper scrutiny. The Bill establishing the Child Support Agency is an example of what can go wrong when there is a lot of consensus about legislation.
The Minister scoffs at our protests that the very fabric of parliamentary democracy is being damaged. Last night's business statement confirmed that that is happening. The Government show total disregard for the House of Commons and for a very important Bill.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be brief, as it is hypocritical to argue at great length for the more expeditious use of our time in the House.
I followed last night's debate as closely as I could without actually being in the Chamber throughout and I read Hansard very carefully this morning. I was interested to discover that such skilled debaters as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) seemed to speak at much greater length than usual. They are normally rather succinct—the sign of a good debater—but it may be significant that their skills seemed to fail them.
Why did we get into that difficulty last night? What were the effects? Discussion of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill was postponed, as was discussion of the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. The latter is an extremely important measure for those of us who represent fishing communities. It is concerned with various schemes of financial assistance. The explanatory notes state that it is designed to ensure that Ministers may
make various schemes of financial assistance 'for the purposes of reorganising, developing or promoting the sea fish industry or of contributing to the expenses of those engaged in it.'
That is extremely important.

Mr. Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I said that I would be brief, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will get his chance.
The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) is not present today. I know that there are not many fishermen in Bromley, but Conservative Members who represent fishing communities will have some answering to do. The Conservative party has caused to be postponed the approval of grants to fishing communities of something like £7 million. The availability of that sum could now be in doubt as a result of the delaying tactics last night.
However, it is the Government's business to get their business through. They cannot be allowed to escape scot free of responsibility for last night's extraordinary events. I was amazed when I was told in advance how the Government intended to handle last night's business. I assumed that a new spirit of compromise and consensus had broken out over the new year, and that something had been done to deal with the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst. I thought that the millennium spirit must have overtaken them.
I also assumed that the Conservative Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), had somehow managed to discipline what has become an undisciplined rabble on the Conservative Benches, but the Government must now know that that is not the case. The Conservative party has its own millennium bug, and it was visible on its Back Benches last night.
The Government must take very seriously the fact that Conservative Front-Bench Members are unable to control the party's maverick rebels. The evidence is clear in the Hansard report of last night's proceedings. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said:
I…feel in no way bound by a colleague who, unbeknown to me, conspires with the Government in a working party to give this measure a spurious urgency that I do not understand and that has not yet been explained to me." — [Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 876.]
That is a declaration of war—not of war with the Government or with the Liberal Democrat party, but of civil war. The Government must take careful note.
It was interesting that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Buckingham seemed to be vying for the honour of making the longest contribution to the debate. Can that have anything to do with the fact that they are both on the award shortlist for the Opposition Member of the year competition? I understand that voting is taking place as I speak. Their contributions last night were electoral statements, and should have been declared as such.
I was interested that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who seemed to be a late entrant into the stakes, even managed to speak about junk mail and wine from Bordeaux Direct. Surely that is not relevant to the Bill.
The Conservative Chief Whip and the shadow Leader of the House were not even present when we were discussing the change in business last night. They have effectively disowned their Back Benchers.

Miss Widdecombe: Where were you?

Mr. Tyler: I was here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have the right hon. Lady shouting across at the hon. Gentleman while he is speaking.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. Lady is so keen on law and order that at least she listens to you, if not to me.
I believe that the Government should have foreseen the situation. They should recognise that the Conservative party is incapable of uniting behind its Front Bench. They should recognise that Conservative Back-Bench Members are in no way obliged to follow their Front-Bench leader, even when agreement has been reached. In those circumstances, it was, frankly, folly to table the business in an open-ended way and to cause so much trouble.

Miss Widdecombe: Lib-Lab pact.

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No, I am about to sit down.

Miss Widdecombe: He is scared.

Mr. Tyler: I have said on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on Modernisation, that we believe that agreed programme motions are the way to proceed. I welcome the fact that that has become a regular practice. I do not understand why the Conservative Front Bench, having agreed to the necessity and importance of the Bill, did not then agree to a programme motion.

Miss Widdecombe: We wanted a debate.

Mr. Tyler: Could the Government, or a Conservative Member—or even the right hon. Lady, who seems incapable of keeping her mouth shut when in a sedentary position—explain?

Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I shall now give way to the right hon. Lady.

Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The explanation is very simple. We believe in debate, and we believe in the importance of the Bill. When there is consensus on a Bill, that is precisely when it is most important that it is subject to the scrutiny of the whole House. That is why we wanted it taken on the Floor of the House in the first place, and the Government did not.

Mr. Tyler: It is evident that there is no longer consensus within the Conservative party. That is the problem. There is consensus on the importance of the legislation; there is consensus in the Modernisation Committee that a programme motion is appropriate for this sort of business, so that we can then have an orderly discussion of the issues. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has important points to make; he should be able to make them, not be squeezed out by the irrelevance of the contributions of some Conservative Members.
Earlier in the debate on the business of the House, reference was made to the shadow Leader of the Opposition. I think that it was a slip of the tongue; it was a reference not to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), but to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. May I suggest that, in future, the Government seek agreed

programme motions with those on the Conservative Front Bench? May I also suggest that they also need a third-party endorsement from the other party behind the Conservative Front Bench if they are to push it through?

Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to avoid being a casualty in other people's battles. The last three groups of amendments stand in my name. The timetable motion is liable to affect my amendments so that they will fall unless there is Conservative co-operation.
If the Minister examines the record, he will see that last Thursday I moved two sets of amendments and I was brief in doing so because I was conscious of the time. We dealt with them rapidly. It would be my intention to deal similarly with these amendments. They refer to relatively minor but important matters in specific areas affecting electoral returning officers, such as their ability to correct clerical errors at the last minute before elections take place. We need an opportunity to debate those issues. I can only appeal to Opposition Members to move speedily through their amendments.
Paragraph 6 of the timetable motion states:
No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.
If there is a lack of progress today, and we do not reach some of the serious amendments at the end, there may be an opportunity for Ministers to take action to see that I am given the chance to debate my amendments.

Mr. Eric Forth: These are often revealing occasions when, in the heat of the moment, people give things away that they might not otherwise do. There have been a number of such examples in the past few minutes.
First, I must take the Minister to task. He opened by saying that Opposition Members who were not against the Bill turned up to debate it. I have made it very clear, and it was referred to a number of times, that I am against the Bill. It is unnecessary, bad and dangerous but, most of all, it is badly drafted. The fact that it was badly drafted became increasingly apparent as the debate proceeded.
It is worrying that both Ministers and Liberal Democrat Members appear to believe that debate is an unnecessary embarrassment in the House of Commons, and that these matters should be dealt with in some expedited way involving the minimum of embarrassing debate. That may be what is characterised as the modern view of this place, but it is not one that I share.
I am of the old school; I confess that my view of the House has been shaped over many years. I had the privilege to come here in 1983, and I have seen it from the viewpoint of a Government Back Bencher, a Minister and now an Opposition Back Bencher. My view is that this is the place where matters should be dealt with, very often in a slow, deliberative—albeit, I understand, very frustrating—way. I am also still of the view that time is the best and most effective weapon that any Opposition party has. In that, I do not count the Liberal Democrat party, because it is an arm of government, to all intents and purposes. The speech of the hon. Member for North


Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) illustrates that all too well. I cling to the view that it is incumbent on Members of Parliament, in their different capacities, to make the contribution that they must to scrutiny and, occasionally—yes—to delay the Government. That is partly what was happening yesterday.
Last night, the Government tried to push through three separate pieces of legislation in one sitting. That gives us a clear idea of the Government's mindset. It would be bad enough if they were trying peremptorily to finish off a very important and badly drafted Bill in one sitting. Incidentally, it appears that, to them, a sitting must now finish at 10 o'clock—I shall come back to that in a moment. Had they attempted to do just that, it would have been bad enough—but they then had the effrontery to expect the House to lie down and be trampled on by two Second Readings. The Government know that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill is controversial; it was opposed by me—and others—when it was a private Member's Bill, and I shall oppose it again when it comes before the House as a Government Bill.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall should not be complaining to us that debate on the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill was delayed. He should be asking the Government why they tacked that Bill on at the end of the day's business, behind the remaining stages of one Bill and the Second Reading of another. He did not ask them because his party is an arm of government.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman should be fair to my hon. Friend. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard that the Liberal Democrats share his view on this issue. I believe that the other business should not have been down for debate last night after the Representation of the People Bill. If there had been no other business, would the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have wanted to take so much time debating the Representation of the People Bill?

Mr. Forth: The answer, almost certainly, is yes. It is clear from both yesterday's and today's Order Papers that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have tabled amendments to this bad Bill. We felt that we should do so too. The Bill may have started as a cosy, consensual proposal, and there may well have been a working party of which I knew nothing. No doubt, some agreement was reached, although I am uneasy about that. If it was, so be it. However, the hon. Gentleman, whose respect for the House is almost as great as my own, must agree that the Bill has turned out to have more and more loopholes, to be poorly drafted, and to need more and more corrections, even by the Government.
The Government, although they have tabled amendments to the Bill, have accused us of doing what we should not have done—of having the gall to debate the Bill, the effrontery to table amendments and the impudence to take some time over discussing them. That says more about the Government's attitude to the House and to debate than it does about us.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to misrepresent the Liberal Democrats, although I do not think that he or the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have done so, so I should

make it clear that, where a Bill arrives in the Chamber with a degree of cross-party support, it must be scrutinised properly. No one would suggest otherwise. The drafting of such Bills also requires particular attention. I disagree on that point with neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made the same point two or three times, and it must be correct. We are all scarred by the memory of the Children Act 1989, which introduced the Child Support Agency and was hailed as a model of consensus and all-party agreement. We have all suffered for it ever since. Last night's events illustrate beyond peradventure that we should be doubly suspicious of a Bill that comes before the House after a process of cosy consensus. We should have learned the important lesson that such Bills might require even more scrutiny.
I want to say a few words about the magic of 10 o'clock. The modernisers may take the view that the House should complete its proceedings at 10 o'clock and that it is unreasonable to keep more sensitive Members or Members of a particular gender here beyond that time. They are entitled to that view, but I do not see why the House should limit itself in that way. I freely confess that I was moulded by the experience of the Parliaments of 1983–87 and 1987–92, when business was routinely done late into the night.

Mr. Tyler: I did not say, and my colleagues and I will never say, that it is necessary to end the business at 10 o'clock. I apologise if I gave the right hon. Gentleman the wrong impression about that. I served my apprenticeship in the House in the balanced Parliament of 1974, which often sat late into the night. I recall that some of those debates were very valuable. The Liberal Democrats did not say last night that we thought it necessary or desirable to end business at 10 o'clock. We were prepared to stay as long as was necessary.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for that point, and I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from what I am about to say. The Government want to put the House into a state of mind that suggests that anything that happens after 10 o'clock is unbearable, unnecessary and undeliverable. That is a problem for the Government and the Whips; they should not visit it on us. Yesterday, we were here to do serious business in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. The fact that they could not bear scrutiny beyond 10 o'clock is their problem, not mine. The concomitant difficulties in their management of business are also their problem.

Mr. Bercow: Is not the performance of Labour Members especially unfortunate? A large number of Labour Members were not outside the Palace of Westminster attending to other duties last night, but were having convivial evenings within the precincts. If it is good enough for them to be here for other—often highly enjoyable—purposes, why is it unreasonable of us to expect them to attend to their legislative duties in the Chamber?

Mr. Forth: I shall hazard a guess that those Members were told by their Whips not to be in the Chamber.


That is another aspect of new, modern government. It seems that Labour Members must not be here to participate in debate. We saw ample evidence of that last night, and similar evidence is before us today. That worries me.
I want the business to proceed properly today. To the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), I should say that I believe that, whether or not the Minister changes the order of business, we shall reach his important amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) —who sends his apologies—and I have tried to withdraw some of our amendments so that today's progress may be better facilitated.

Mr. Barnes: The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that he would be keen to speak on Third Reading. I hope that he will assist us in reaching that stage as I am among several Members who would like to say a few words then.

Mr. Forth: I shall facilitate that process by sitting down shortly. I rebut all that the Minister has said. I make no apology for playing my role in scrutinising the Bill and in engaging in debate. I hope to continue to do so. The Government's attitude towards the democratic process and accountability is alarming and dangerous.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's refusal to go beyond 10 o'clock last night resulted in the remaining stages of the Electronic Communications Bill not being proceeded with today? Does he realise that many people in the e-commerce industry are incredibly concerned about the way in which that Bill has been bumped? A further delay has affected a Bill of great importance.

Mr. Forth: That fact illustrates the Government's peculiar sense of priorities. That important Bill has been sacrificed, even if only for a few days, while we continue to discuss a dangerous and unnecessary Bill that will add nothing to the welfare of the nation or to the security of the electoral process.
I am sorry that we have had to return today to debate the Bill, which we could and should have dealt with last night. This is yet another example of the Government's high-handed arrogance towards the House and the legislative process. I suspect that they are coming to like guillotines and the truncation of debate, because they are finding debates increasingly inconvenient. However, I see no reason why this Bill—no matter how unfortunate and unnecessary the circumstances surrounding it—should not be properly scrutinised, make progress and be dealt with in the way that Bills always should be.

Mr. John Bercow: The Government's behaviour is frankly disgraceful. What has been announced today, and last night by the Leader of the House, amounts to an abrogation of the rights of Members of Parliament legitimately to highlight issues of remaining concern. Let it be placed on the record that, if members of the Liberal Democrat party are not prepared to denounce the Government's conduct, they sacrifice all claim to be a serious party of opposition. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Liberal Democrats are merely

a limp-wristed appendage of the Government Front Bench. That may be good enough for them, but it would not be acceptable to Conservative Members.
It is important to understand the rationale behind what happened last night. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) returning to the Chamber, because I intend to refer to him.

Mr. Forth: He is another appendage.

Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend makes that poignant observation from his sedentary position. The hon. Member for North Cornwall cavilled at the conduct of Conservative Members, asserting ludicrously that Front Benchers were in some way out of sync with, and lacking control over, Back-Bench Members. Although I was flattered to be listed in the distinguished company of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the hon. Gentleman made a simple error in referring to me as a Back-Bench Member who was trying to upstage or contradict Conservative Front Benchers. I know that I am not a well-known figure, but let it be recorded that I am, in fact, a junior member of the Conservative Front-Bench team. I realise that that gives me about the status of the Foreign Minister of the Latvian Republic during the period of occupation, but one must be grateful for small mercies. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for the responsibilities that he has given me. I am a member of an Opposition Front-Bench team and I want it to be understood that Front-Bench Members of a political party are, first and foremost, Members of Parliament, who have not only a right but arguably a duty—a bounden duty at that—critically to scrutinise the legislation that comes before the House.
I hope that the hon. Member for North Cornwall does not suggest that, because I sit on the Front Bench and participate in Education and Employment questions once a month, that releases me from my responsibility, on behalf of my constituents, to consider the various elements of the Representation of the People Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber yesterday afternoon, he would have heard me express vigorous support for the stance taken by my hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I did not cavil at their stance; I did not contradict them; I did not dispute that their line was right. I said that particular aspects of the Bill—relating to residence, the definition of temporary in the context of periods of absence from residence, weekend voting, pilot schemes and lengths, types and forms of consultation—needed to be thoroughly scrutinised by the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am slightly confused. The hon. Gentleman has owned up to being a member of a Conservative Front-Bench team. Recently, one of his former colleagues, who held a similar position, found himself in some difficulties when he disagreed with the Front-Bench line. For a while, he was uncomfortable on the Conservative Benches; now, he is uncomfortable on the Labour Benches. Does the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) own up to supporting all the views of his party's Front-Bench spokesmen on the Bill,


or did I detect a bit of support for the occasionally dissenting views expressed by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)?

Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is a legendary force for making mischief. He is trying hard, but he will not succeed with me. My vigorous support for my Front-Bench colleagues knows no bounds. I yield to none in my admiration for the parliamentary skills, and the continuing assiduity, of the Conservative shadow home affairs team. I am absolutely with my colleagues. However, I have a duty to look at the detail and to ask questions.
In the context of the outrageous decision to introduce an allocation of time motion, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) —who is not even bothering to listen to the substance of the debate—should distinguish between adverse comment about a Bill, or clauses in it, and questions about clauses in a Bill and potential amendments to it. In many cases, I asked a series of perfectly reasonable questions about clauses, although very often I received answers that were not perfectly reasonable or—sometimes—no answers at all. Many Members really want to contribute to debate.
I shall unburden myself of an anxiety that I have long harboured, although by doing so in the Chamber I probably guarantee that it will remain a state secret. I find it quite extraordinary that Members of the House spend years and, in some cases, even decades, seeking election to it; but that, having secured election to the House, which is the greatest privilege that any English man or woman—or Welsh man or Northern Irish man or Scots man or, for that matter, Scots woman—can enjoy, they seem peculiarly reluctant to spend any time in the Chamber. Why do the attractions of other parts of the Palace of Westminster exceed the attractions of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating a timetable motion, not the social habits of hon. Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would remember that.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As always, I comply with your exhortation and guidance.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which the business has been changed at short notice means that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) cannot be in the Chamber, because he is attending the Standing Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill? Furthermore, I cannot attend the Westminster Hall debate on small firms to make an important contribution. The change of business has had many repercussions.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. His point shows that we would not have willed the situation. The idea that the matter was deliberately engineered by Conservative Members is nonsense. It results from the actions of a high-handed, imperious, arrogant Government, who are uninterested in, and largely oblivious to, any criticism that might reasonably be expressed of them.

Mr. Norman Baker: May I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the remarks he made earlier? I assure

him that I am neither limp-wristed nor an appendage to anybody. Will he clarify the motivation of Conservative Members yesterday? I am as much in favour as anybody else of scrutiny by the House. It is part of the role of every Member of Parliament to keep an eye on the Government. Yesterday, Conservative Members gave the Representation of the People Bill an extremely long and slow scrutiny. Was their motivation genuinely to consider the detail of the Bill, or was it to ensure that the Government were forced, because of the timetable that the Government themselves had set, to cancel debate on legislation that appeared on the Order Paper after the Bill?

Mr. Bercow: No. The reason the hon. Gentleman should not contribute on that point is that he was not in the Chamber. The reason why the substance of his argument is wrong is that, during the debate yesterday, I lost count of the number of occasions on which my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) reluctantly gave way, but made it clear that they were anxious to bring their remarks to a conclusion. They made pithy, succinct and eloquent contributions on matters of considerable complexity. It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to cavil at their doing so.
What audacity we have seen from the Government today. How dare Ministers complain about the way in which we delayed debate when it was the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who introduced the subject of the Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper? As he had decided to favour the House with the views of Karl Popper, I had to respond—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not go into the detail of what happened yesterday. [Interruption.] Order. In this House, we take one day at a time. Yesterday has gone; we are discussing a timetable motion.

Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will take note. If he had not made his intervention, it would not have been necessary for me to refer to "The Open Society and its Enemies", "Conjectures and Refutations" and the "The Poverty of Historicism" and so on. However, those were legitimate matters in the light of the Minister's remarks yesterday.
We were holding a serious debate. The final proof of my earnestness in debate is that, yesterday, I was celebrating my birthday. The Minister might say, "What a sad anorak; he wants to spend his birthday debating the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): indicated assent.

Mr. Bercow: It is true that, later, I was due to meet a friend for a celebration of my birthday. However, I took immensely seriously the important amendments that we had to consider. If Labour Members think that I took part in the debate simply in order to prolong it or to cause the Government inconvenience, when I could have had a thoroughly stimulating evening elsewhere, they are absolutely wrong. There were weaknesses in the Bill.


They needed debate; they required scrutiny and they deserved criticism. That is what Conservative Members offered.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill—

Timetable

1. The remaining proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, four hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2. — (1) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others) —

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Proceedings under paragraph 2 above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

4. If at this day's sitting proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), commence at a time when proceedings on the Bill are in progress, the proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill.

5. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to the Bill.

6. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill: and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

7. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and if a Minister makes any such Motion, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith.

8. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

9. If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of the proceedings on this Motion or on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Representation of the People Bill

As amended in the Committee, further considered.

Clause 6

NOTIONAL RESIDENCE: DECLARATIONS OF LOCAL CONNECTION

Amendment proposed [19 January]: No. 30, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
(5A) Where the declarant falls into the category of person mentioned in subsection 2(c) above, the declaration of local connection must state that the declarant has spent a substantial part of his time (whether during the day or at night) in the parliamentary constituency (or, if the declaration is made for the purpose of local government elections only under the provisions of subsection (6) below, the local government electoral area) during the whole of the period of three months ending on the date of the declaration." — [Mr. Evans.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 9, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
(10) When an address given in a declaration of local connection is owned or occupied by a person, persons, business or organisation, permission must be obtained from such person, persons, business or organisation for that address to be used in the declaration.".
No. 31, in page 9, line 20, at end insert—
'(10) When a declaration of local connection is received by the registration officer, he shall make enquiries in order to satisfy himself that the declarant falls within the categories of person listed in subsection (2) above, and no declarant shall be entered on the register until the registration officer is so satisfied.".
No. 27, in schedule 1, page 20, line 35, at end insert—
(5A) It shall be the responsibility of the registration officer to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection made under section 7B of this Act.".

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Yesterday, I was concluding my remarks on the amendments. My objection to amendment No. 9 was that it would require homeless persons, who, for example, wanted to use the address of the shop in whose doorway they normally spent the night, to obtain the shopkeeper's permission before doing so. If the shopkeeper refused permission, the homeless person would be disfranchised. I could see no justification for that. The shopkeeper is not affected by the measure; it is not a claim to a right to use the doorway. Indeed, arguably, the shopkeeper would be consenting to the use of the doorway by permitting the homeless person to sleep there, although I think it would take a good lawyer to argue that. The shopkeeper might be in a worse position if he consented than if he did not.
Amendment No. 31 would impose an unnecessary additional responsibility on electoral registration officers. They would be required to check whether people making a declaration of local connection fell into one of three


categories eligible to register in that way. That should not be too difficult in the case of mental patients and remand prisoners, but it is not clear what the registration officer would be expected to do to satisfy himself that a declarant was homeless.
Moreover, the amendment would move away from the general principle that the registration officer would normally accept registration applications at face value unless and until objections were raised to the inclusion of a particular name on the register or the omission of another name from it. We do not want to make that move.
The same objection applies equally to amendment No. 27. Why should the registration officer be required to take special steps for people registering by a declaration of local connection which he does not have to take for any other electors? Again, he should be expected to accept the information that he is given unless objections are raised.
I invite the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I offer apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is in the Standing Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is torn between two places. I hope that he recognises that we did not divide the House on the allocation of time motion so that we could move on to this debate. Indeed, as I have said before, we had only two Divisions during the entire Committee stage of the Bill.
Last night, the Minister gave a rather petulant response on amendments Nos. 30 and 31, and I suspect that it may have been because of the changed circumstances and the fact that he had suddenly acquired an audience. The Minister missed the point completely, and I hope that he did so deliberately.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, whatever the size of the audience in the Chamber, there are many people who watch the parliamentary channel and ensure that they keep an eye on what hon. Members in the Chamber are doing, and so they should.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that contribution. Those people would have watched aghast at the Government's antics last night in curtailing discussion of this Bill.
Our amendments are not too onerous. We said last night that we were asking only that people making a declaration of local connection should say that they have had a connection for at least three months. That is not onerous, and it would help to plug some of the holes that unfortunately are appearing in the Bill.
The Minister scoffed at my remarks last night and made a joke about homeless people getting access to the internet so that they could scour the country and make a declaration of local connection in parliamentary constituencies where there was a small majority. The Bill is open to abuse, and although I do not believe that homeless people would do as the Minister suggested, others may make declarations of local connection.
I mentioned the internet because, as the Minister knows, the internet is widely used by groups who want to protest about many things, including the World Trade

Organisation meeting in the USA last year. On that occasion, many demonstrators turned up at Euston station, not because they were responding to an advertisement in The Guardian or another newspaper, but because they had talked to one another in chat groups and passed information via the internet.
If protest groups want to abuse the Bill, they can use the internet, and groups from all over the country will turn up not just in Euston to protest, as they did last year, but in the seats of certain Members of Parliament. Those protesters will be able to make a declaration of local connection, and there will be no check and no onus of proof on them.
2.45 pm

Mr. James Gray: Is not my hon. Friend concerned also about the activities of new age travellers? Last week, I visited the gypsy encampment at Middlezoy in Somerset, where over 1,000 people are camped. They could well abuse the provisions of the Bill if they wished to change the outcome of an election in a marginal seat.

Mr. Evans: Indeed, one can envisage people making a protest in just one seat—I believe that a number of new age travellers turned up in Brighton—and, if a general election were called, they could easily decide to move into a particular seat and make a declaration of local connection. They could choose a Minister's seat; for example, in my region they could choose the Home Secretary's constituency of Blackburn.
We are asking not only for a three-month test to demonstrate that someone has a genuine local connection, past and possibly future, but for the electoral registration officer to be obliged to check that connection. I repeat that it is not an onerous duty. The Minister wondered how the ERO would be able to check that. He or a member of his staff would simply have to go to the area where the person has said that he spends most of the night or most of the day—Victoria street has been used as an example when we are discussing homeless people—and check whether the person is staying there.
If the ERO takes those precautions, that will help to prevent the Bill being open to abuse by people who will have in their minds not the extension of democratic rights and the enfranchisement of homeless people but the perversion of democracy by an attempt to unseat Members of Parliament—perhaps even Ministers.
I hope that Ministers will reconsider the amendment when the Bill goes to another place and that the Government will perhaps table their own amendment, which we would consider carefully when the Bill returns here. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

PILOT SCHEMES

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 28, page 12, line 4, at end insert—
'(2A) Where a scheme makes provision for voting to take place on more than one day, any order under subsection (1) above shall include provisions that prohibit the publication of such material as


may be specified that indicates or purports to indicate the way in which two or more persons voting prior to the day of the poll (or, if more than one day is designated as a day of the poll, to the last day so designated) have cast their votes.'.
We return now to the problem of polling. As the Minister has already accepted that the problem exists, I do not intend to dwell on it.
If polling is extended over more than one day, a problem arises with exit polling. Under pilot schemes, a constituency may want to trial the opening of an early box in the town hall. Opening all polling stations would involve prohibitive costs—possibly thousands of pounds—for a constituency. I suspect that there may be an official polling day, but that a box will be opened early in the town hall in one or two places in a constituency, so that people will be able to cast their votes early.
If the early polling were concentrated in just one or two stations, it would be easier for polling organisations to man those areas. I am referring not to polling people as to how they may vote—the predictive element—but as to how they have voted. That means that the poll is more realistic, although we know that that is not always the case. I am happy to say that in the 1992 general election the exit polling was completely wrong.
Exit polls may sway people in their vote. Some will go along with the trend, but if the exit poll shows that one party might gain a large majority, some may be dissuaded from even taking part in the poll. Although such trends and behaviour may disadvantage one party at the moment, that situation will alter in future.
This is not rocket science. Such provisions already exist in other countries. To save time in Committee. I decided not to read out the full list of those countries and I shall not do so now. However, I know that the Minister is aware that the legislation in some countries bans exit polling once voting has already started. In some countries, such polls are banned even in the few days before the election takes place. We are not asking for that. We are merely suggesting that, if voting has begun in the pilot area, polling must not be allowed to take place.
In France, voting takes place over two Sundays. That means that there is no polling for two weeks during general election campaigns. Although such provisions are not part of the legislation in the United States, because of the time-zone problem, appeals are made to people on the east coast not to declare their results before people on the west coast have voted.
The Minister gave us an assurance in Committee. I hope that he will he able to reassure us once again that the matter will be considered carefully when the Bill goes to another place. Perhaps a Government amendment will be tabled. Such an amendment is necessary because local authorities in a pilot would not have the power individually to ban exit polling. The matter needs to be considered here and a provision must appear in the Bill.

Mr. Mike Hancock: On this occasion, Liberal Democrats will support the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made it clear that there are several good reasons for the amendment.
I have some experience of what can happen when an exit poll is conducted in a city such as Portsmouth. The newspaper there publishes a lunchtime edition followed by several later editions. An exit poll of early polling between

6 and 8 am could easily be in the public domain by lunchtime. I know for a fact that a newspaper can have a marked impact on elections and it is to the credit of a newspaper that it can engage its readers with such well-informed comment. I, for one, was probably a beneficiary of that when I won a by-election to this place in 1984. Against the official poll odds, I was elected. It was interesting that the lunchtime edition of the newspaper on polling day suggested that I was in a very good position.
I am therefore, conscious that exit polls are a dangerous tool, in the sense that they can influence people during the election process. We shall support the amendment, and I hope that the Minister sees the sense of it and recognises the need for such a provision to appear in this clause and not as part of a schedule.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I hope that I can deal with the amendment briefly. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) suggested, the Government are sympathetic to it.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) argued, it would be unfortunate if an exit poll were published before the polls had finally closed and, as a result, influenced people's votes. In fact, in some cases, it might encourage people not to vote. If it appeared that a landslide were likely to happen in a constituency or council ward because the exit poll suggested that one candidate was home and dry, people might not bother to vote.
I responded to a similar amendment in Committee and suggested that I was sympathetic to it and would look for an opportunity to address the issues raised then and in this amendment. I am happy to repeat the undertaking: the Home Office is considering how best to address the problem and it will be very tempting to table amendments in another place.

Mr. Gray: I wholeheartedly endorse the points that have been made by hon. Members of all parties. However, I am concerned that such an amendment might affect the legitimate telling operations carried out by all political parties during elections to determine whether their vote has turned out.

Mr. Howarth: I have not as yet seen the Home Office's precise draft of an amendment to be tabled in the other place. However, I think that it would be illegitimate for it to interfere with the workings of political parties. It is legitimate for a political party to gather information for different purposes from voters leaving polling stations if they are willing to provide it. However, in terms of the principle that we are discussing, we would have to distinguish between a political party's making use of exit polls—for want of a better term—to enable it to identify those who have already voted so as not to disturb them further, and its using the information to publish a poll on its behalf. That would be illegitimate.
Complex issues are involved. However, it has suddenly come to me out of the blue that the arrangements that the Home Office intends to make would not affect telling.

Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth: I will, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is the last time that I shall do so. I am about to say something with which he might be rather pleased.

Mr. Bercow: I await with eager anticipation, bated breath and veritable beads of sweat on my brow to hear what the Minister has to say.
Will the Minister confirm that he is not aware of instances—I confess from my experience in Buckingham that I am not aware of them—in which tellers' activities have been used for a partisan advantage by political party? It would be a matter of grave concern if they had. Is it not true that, on the whole, such activities are internalised activities that are conducted for the benefit of the organisation locally, and that there is no evidence of their being used for partisan purposes?

Mr. Howarth: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view entirely. From my experience in the Labour party, I know that the information that is gathered as people exit the polling station is used solely for internal purposes. I am bound to say that such information is not always entirely accurate. On more than one occasion, I have been chased down the path by an irate voter assuring me with such vigour that they have already voted that I am inclined to believe them.
Our intention is to table suitable amendments in the other place to cover precisely the points raised. As I said earlier, we are grateful to the Opposition for raising this important issue. On the basis of the further undertakings that I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Evans: The Minister's response—not only now, but in Committee—shows the usefulness of the Committee stage and the scrutiny that the Bill is receiving.
A polling organisation might publish a poll in a newspaper, on the internet or on television or radio purporting to represent an actual trend because it is based on the response of people who have taken the time and trouble to turn up at polling stations and cast their votes early. That poll may or may not be accurate. We are all aware from our own electoral histories of instances where the polling has been totally accurate and others where it has been totally wrong. Many different polling methods are used, but I am not sure that they are becoming any more accurate.
If a polling organisation gets it wrong, people may decide how to cast their vote on the basis of the information given. That may be false information and it may distort the vote in one way or another. There are therefore powerful reasons to prevent the publication of polling.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) legitimately asked whether, since we do not know how the Bill will be amended in another place, there will be an effect on the traditional telling in which political parties become involved. I have been reassured on that point. Perhaps the Minister will take on board the fact that political parties may decide in their telling also

to conduct their own polling. We all know that that goes on. In the case of the Liberal Democrats, it is normally done by releasing spurious canvassing returns. They greatly inflate the support that they receive and are shocked when they come third or fourth when the result of the election is announced—when they find that support on the doorstep was not reflected in the votes in the ballot box.
3 pm
Telling would be allowed to continue, but we should also consider circumstances where early polling takes place and political parties publish leaflets and other literature—or information is made available on radio, television or the internet. It would also be wrong if a political party said, "We have done some early polling of those who voted early and we find that we are now first and everybody else is way behind," or even that the result would be very close when in fact it was not.
Telling must be allowed to continue. When the Home Secretary examines pilot projects, I hope that he will ensure that, in any early voting that takes place, the facility of political parties to tell and to look for personation, for example, will be allowed to continue. It should not be made so difficult that we are not allowed fully to fulfil our functions when the poll is taking place.
With the assurances that the Minister has given us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order that is relevant to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise that I did not make it before the previous debate. I have discussed it with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
On the amendment paper yesterday, there were three selections by Madam Speaker that included amendments that had the support of Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members. The names of those who had tabled them appeared above them. In each case, the lead name was either the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst or that of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There were other amendments above which only those two names appeared.
When we read the selection paper today, we found that two of the three groups that were withdrawn had the support of both Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members. I am not pressing you to make a ruling now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I ask for an indication from you or from Madam Speaker of whether it is in order, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst tells me that he was led to believe—I accept that—that shared amendments can be withdrawn without the permission of others who were signatories to them? My hon. Friends and I did not know that the amendments would be withdrawn. We had not been asked and we had not agreed that it should happen. We found that amendments with which we would have persisted were not on the amendment paper.
I am not criticising the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst or for Penrith and The Border. Clearly, something has gone wrong. One of the amendments was in the group that we have just debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The rules make it clear that the Member who has the lead name—in this instance,


the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) —is entitled to withdraw the amendment at any time before it is before the House. Therefore, it is not a matter for the Chair. It is perhaps a matter of courtesy to get in touch with those who added their signatures to the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 12, line 4, at end insert—
'(2B) No scheme which makes provision for voting to take place on more than one day and which makes provision for voting to take place on either Saturday or Sunday shall be submitted to or approved by the Secretary of State unless it makes provision for voting to take place on both days.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No.21, in page 12, line 37, at end insert—
'(e) the choice of polling day or days was seen as offensive by religious or other groups; and
(f) the choice of polling day or days led to any prejudice of the votes cast by certain groups.'.

Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will accept that most of the amendments to which he referred were covered by my amendment. However, I understand his point.
The amendment is the result of discussions that have taken place during the passage of the Bill. We believe that polling taking place on a Sunday would be entirely unacceptable to a large group of people if that was the only day on which polling took place. It would be ironic if, in introducing a Bill designed to enfranchise more people and to encourage more people to vote, even a pilot allowing voting on a Sunday led to a number of people feeling unable to vote. That would be completely against the spirit of the proposed legislation. If polling is to be on only one day, let us put it into the Bill, if it is the position, that polling will not take place on a Saturday or a Sunday.
We all know that there will be problems in any event. If we tried two-day polling on a Saturday and a Sunday, it would allow people who for religious reasons have problems about voting on a day when they are involved in religious observance to vote on the other day.
There are other problems with weekends, which the working party discussed. Life styles are changing for many people, who tend to go away, particularly if they have country homes or caravans, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They may decide to go away for the entire weekend. People may be deprived of the opportunity to vote, especially if the amendment that we discussed earlier in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) about earlier postal votes is not accepted.
In addition, the vote might be distorted. I am not too sure that people with caravans would ever take the opportunity of local declarations of interest if they were away from home with their caravans. With weekend voting, people with second homes could distort the vote. I suspect that similar considerations may apply to students, who are on the register in the area of their university and at home. Some students go on short weekend breaks or go back to see their families. Weekend voting needs to be examined carefully.
The amendment relates specifically to the religious consideration. We ask the Minister to let it be known to local authorities that are thinking of having pilot studies in their areas that it would be entirely unacceptable for that to be on a Saturday or a Sunday. It will be for the Home Office to consider various other days if the pilot study submissions show that people want polls on other days. If there is to be voting on a Saturday and a Sunday, only a true pilot study in various areas will properly tell us what the impact will be and whether there will be an increase in voting. I would be entirely opposed to the change of poll from a Thursday to just a Saturday or just a Sunday. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether he has received representations from organisations objecting to the piloting of polling on days other than the two that I have mentioned.

Mr. Hancock: Once again, Liberal Democrats have more than a degree of sympathy for the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I would support wholeheartedly the idea of moving the poll from a Thursday to a weekend, but I take his point seriously. Many of us represent multi-ethnic communities in which there are people with strong religious convictions who would find it extremely offensive to have voting only on a Sunday. The provision for weekend voting should allow that voting to be on both days. For some religious groups, voting on a Saturday can be as offensive as can voting on Sunday for other groups. There must be a balance. If weekend voting is to take place, it should be tried in a large enough pool of local authorities to allow its effects to be judged properly. It is simply not good enough for one or two authorities to decide that they will try it out. There is a lot to be said for weekend voting.
It was unfortunate—or perhaps fortunate—that I was not here last night. I was attending a meeting of Portsmouth city council—

Mr. Evans: Job sharing.

Mr. Hancock: Yes, job sharing. The democratic process constituted an interesting part of the meeting's deliberations. We were considering whether to have an elected mayor or Cabinet-style government. A frequent question was, "How can we encourage more people to vote?" I do not believe that having an elected mayor or Cabinet-style local government will achieve that. However, spreading the times and days when people can vote would be advantageous to the democratic process.
Many of us are from local government backgrounds, and have witnessed pitiful turnouts at elections. It is obscene that 10 per cent. is not unusual nowadays and that we no longer find an average turnout of 25 per cent. unacceptable in some big cities. We must do something, and the Bill is a major step towards showing that democracy has to be flexible enough to change with the times.
I want to encourage weekend voting, but we must ensure that we do not disadvantage people who feel that those days are significant for their religious beliefs or social activities. Voting must be held on both days of the weekend.

Mr. George Howarth: I want to tackle briefly two of the points that have been made. First, the hon. Member


for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked whether we had received any representations about weekend voting. The Home Office has received only one letter, from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressing anxiety about voting only on Saturday. That is an unreasonable prospect, especially in areas where there is a concentration of Orthodox Jews, who would find it impossible to vote on a Saturday. The letter also expressed concern about holding an election on the day of a Jewish festival. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take those matters into account when he considers the applications for pilot schemes, for which the closing date was last Monday. Although my right hon. Friend has not had an opportunity to scrutinise the applications, they will all have been received by now.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made an equally valid point. He said that as wide a range of areas as possible should be selected for the pilot schemes so that the results would not be skewed by geographical considerations. The Home Secretary and officials aim for a spread of suitable applications so that they can gain a good picture.
I hope that I can be reasonably brief in dealing with the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley pointed out, we have discussed the issues that they raise on Second Reading and in Committee.
We must ensure that we do not harm the interests of those with strong religious views, which would make it difficult for them to vote on a particular day of the week. At the risk of making the eyes of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) glaze over—although I am not sure of the difference between that and his normal expression—I shall mention again the working party that I chaired. I assure hon. Members that the subject that we are considering has been central to our deliberations for a long time, and we do not wish to do anything to the detriment of voters with strong religious views.
3.15 pm
In Committee, I did my best to provide reassurance on the matter. I quoted a Home Office circular, which pointed out that one of the conditions that local authorities will have to fulfil when applying to run a pilot scheme is making a statement that
'no voter will be put at a disadvantage by the proposed innovation'" —[0fficial Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 489.]
That is unambiguous and would cover those with strong religious views.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
If weekend voting ever became part of the national arrangements, we would have to ensure that it took place on both days." — [Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 172.]
I also quoted that in Committee on 13 January, at column 501. I know that my right hon. Friend's efforts to provide the House with some reassurance did not fall on deaf ears because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said on behalf of the Opposition:
The Minister has given assurances that those of strong religious beliefs will not be disadvantaged by changes in the pilot schemes or anything that follows them. I am reassured by that." —[Official Report, 13 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 502.]

Nothing has changed in the few days since then and I hope that, in the light of those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the amendment is unnecessary and withdraw it.
Let us consider amendment No. 21. It is a clear requirement of any pilot scheme that it must be properly evaluated. That includes not only considering its cost or effect on turnout, but its impact on voters. Clause 10(7)(b) is designed for precisely that purpose. We would expect a local authority to consider the effect of any innovation not just on the electorate overall but on groups of electors that were likely to be particularly affected by the innovation.
Home Office guidance on evaluation, which has been made available to local authorities, suggested that it should specifically cover the
acceptability of voting days and times to all faith groups".
I assure hon. Members that my right hon. Friend will not approve any applications that involve a change of voting day when that is not part of the evaluation process.
On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the amendment is unnecessary. However, it was important to debate it.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances and his final comment. It is important to scrutinise the Bill properly and give reasonable time to considering amendments such as Nos. 29 and 21.
I am grateful for the support of Liberal Democrat Members for the amendment. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) talked about the need for a wide enough pool. If the pilot schemes are to be properly evaluated, there must be a range of them, not simply one in the south-east or in the north-west. They must be tested in many regions to enable a proper evaluation.
I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the crisis of democracy, especially in by-elections, where there have been turnouts of 16 per cent. The turnout for one European election was under 10 per cent. That is appalling and I hope that the measure will help to redress that, although I have grave reservations. It will take more than the Bill to achieve that.
The Minister gave reassurances about the regulations that will be established, and said that it would be acceptable for a specific local authority to undertake a pilot on both days of a weekend, but unacceptable for it to move polling from Thursday to Saturday or Sunday. I am grateful for that.
I was interested to learn that the deadline for applications to carry out pilot schemes this year has already passed. I should be grateful for an early indication of the number of applications.

Mr. Howarth: I shall ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) provides that information as soon as possible.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that. Perhaps an analysis of the sort of schemes that people are suggesting can be provided early so that other local authorities that have not had an opportunity to submit a pilot scheme for this year will have some food for thought. I understand that the pilot schemes can be submitted next year, too.
I seek clarification from the Minister of one further matter. It will be expensive for voting to take place on more than one day, and I know that the Home Secretary will consider carefully the cost of the pilot studies. If a local authority decided to hold two whole days of polling, I assume that that would be extremely expensive.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: My local authority, St. Helens, made an application for a two-day polling pilot and the estimated cost is £5,000, which is not very great.

Mr. Evans: Five thousand pounds—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), from a sedentary position, referring to six wards. When local elections are held in parts of local authority areas, they can perhaps be carried out at reasonable cost, but when they involve more than six wards, twice as many personnel are likely to be needed, and at weekends they would have to be paid time and a half or double time. The implications of that must be taken into account.
If a local authority wants to move from polling on a Thursday to polling over two days, as the Home Secretary will not permit voting on only a Saturday or only a Sunday, it can decide to conduct only partial polling on the Saturday and whole polling on the Sunday, or the other way round. In other words, all the polling stations in an area would be open on one day, and fewer would be open on the other day.
We know that, in certain parts of constituencies, there are concentrations of people of certain religious persuasions who would be affected by that. They would not receive the same service as was delivered to others in the constituency. If such people decided that, for religious reasons, they could not vote on the Saturday, they could be disadvantaged by having to vote on the Sunday. They might have to travel greater distances because their local polling station might not be open. They would be told that polling stations were open in certain other areas, or perhaps only one polling station would be open in the town hall.

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Minister responds to that point, I hope that he does so with caution. I understand the need to keep costs down, but the possibility that, over a two-day period, ballot boxes would not be available universally in a ward or constituency on one day would be a big mistake, and would leave the local authority or any other body conducting the election open to serious challenge.

Mr. Evans: I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that, if voting is held over two days, it will be universal, and that people will not be offered a second-class service because of their religious convictions. If they had to travel considerable distances to vote, it might put them off voting.

Mr. William Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a point which, as far as I am aware, has not been raised in the debate—the integrity of the ballot box which, I assume, will have to be sealed and collected at the end of the first day of voting. Where will the ballot boxes be stored? Who will look after them and ensure that they are not tampered

with? Who will make sure that the following morning they are taken back to the same polling station and the same booth? That is a serious issue.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I have observed elections in the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka and the United States, and I have not come across polling taking place on more than one day. In the pilot study, local authorities that want to move from polling on a Thursday will have to hold voting over two days. From what the Minister said, they will not have a choice. The Home Secretary has made it clear that, if voting is to be held over a weekend, it must be held on both Saturday and Sunday. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are asking that voting should be conducted universally over the two days, if the pilot studies are allowed over a weekend.
I hope that the Minister will take on board the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Perhaps he will write to us. If the Home Secretary decides on voting over a Saturday and a Sunday, what will happen to the ballot boxes in the intervening period, so that everyone can be assured that the integrity of the poll will be maintained? It will be difficult for political parties to provide sufficient people to scrutinise the way in which ballot boxes are stored.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to be assured that, if polling takes place over more than one day, full information will be provided to the political parties about where the polling stations will be, the duration of the poll, and the details mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry concerning the integrity of the poll and the personnel involved.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is it his understanding that, under the Bill as drafted, the Government could contemplate polling over a Saturday and a Sunday, but that, on either of those days, ballot boxes could be only partially available to part of the population?

Mr. Evans: Yes. There is nothing to stop a local authority putting in for a pilot in its area that would involve polling all day on a Saturday but only partially in certain areas on a Sunday, or all day on a Sunday and only partially on a Saturday. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, or indeed to prevent a local authority from holding a poll over more than two days, but the cost would be prohibitive, and I know that the Home Secretary will take cost into account.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmonds): I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. Will he bear in mind the concerns of those of us who represent rural constituencies? Especially in rural areas where there are predominantly urban borough councils, urban members often dictate policy without regard to the interests of rural constituents. I know that Ministers are in listening mode and I hope that they will have particular regard to the interests of rural constituents, who will be singularly disadvantaged if there is partial voting on a Saturday or Sunday, as my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that the Minister will have heard the concerns of my hon. Friend. I share those concerns. I, too, represent a rural constituency, although in some parts


it is more urban than in others. Problems may arise if a partial poll were conducted on one of the two days. I hope that the Minister will take that on board, and I look forward to his reassurances in writing or written into the Bill when it goes to another place.

Mr. George Howarth: rose—

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister seek to intervene?

Mr. Howarth: What I am about to say may be longer than an intervention.

Mr. Evans: I seek guidance from the Chair. Must I seek permission to withdraw the amendment after the Minister has spoken?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: After the Minister has spoken, the hon. Gentleman may seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Howarth: Must I seek leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not necessary. It is the Minister's business.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall deal briefly with the points that have been raised, starting with the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), through the Opposition Front Bench. The security arrangements for ballot boxes used in early voting will be exactly the same as for those used for postal votes, which are of course received before election day. Electoral administrators are entirely familiar with the procedures for keeping ballot boxes secure and I have every confidence that they can do that in those particular circumstances. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a particular application, however, he will have proper regard for not only the cost, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, but the integrity of the ballot. If there were any doubt about whether a particular application could ensure a ballot's integrity, he would not approve the pilot scheme.
3.30 pm
It may be of assistance if I tell hon. Members that, at close of play on Monday, 44 local authorities had made applications, including those of St. Helens, to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred, and Knowsley—surprise, surprise. Some involve more than one innovation and, if I understood him correctly, that is the case for St. Helens.
Relevant points about voting being spread over two days were made by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who referred to religious interests, and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who was concerned about people in rural areas. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary considers a scheme, he has to decide whether any voter would be disadvantaged and in doing so obviously needs to be mindful of religious interests, the interests of rural and urban areas and so on. In such

circumstances, he would find it difficult not to take the interests of rural voters into account, and would not want to disregard them anyway. Hon. Members might not be aware that my constituency has contained a large rural area since the Boundary Commission changes were made for the last general election, so I also have an interest in the matter. I hope that those assurances are helpful.

Mr. Evans: With the leave of the House. I stress once again that, although piloting may take place on one day of a weekend, there should be equality on both days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said. With those assurances, I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

REVISION OF PROCEDURES IN THE LIGHT OF PILOT SCHEMES

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 10 leave out clause 11.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 13, line 13, leave out
and on a permanent basis".
No 49, in page 13, leave out line 19.
No. 50, in page 13, leave out lines 20 and 21.
No. 51, in page 13, line 27, leave out
, or (as the case may be) district electoral area,".
No. 53, in page 13, leave out line 44.
No. 54, in page 14, leave out line 1.
No. 55, in page 14, leave out line 4.
No. 56, in page 14, leave out line 6.
No. 34, in page 17, line 4, leave out "11".
No. 35, in page 17, line 7, after "purposes," insert
; except that section 11 shall not come into force before 1 January 2003.".

Mr. Forth: In what I have repeatedly called an unnecessary and bad Bill, the clause is one of the most worrying provisions. Sub-section (1) says:
If it appears to the Secretary of State, in the light of any report made under section 10"—
such a report would be from a local authority that had conducted one of the pilots we have been discussing—
on a scheme under that section, that it would be desirable for provision similar to that made by the scheme to apply generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description, he may by order make such provision for and in connection with achieving that result as he considers appropriate".
That bothers me considerably. I am worried in any case, as I have said a number of times, about the way in which we are tampering with long-established electoral law. I am not happy with that approach and shall expand my comments, although not at great length, on Third Reading.
All that would be bad enough, because I do not believe that the case has been made for the provision and sufficient weaknesses and loopholes have emerged in Committee and on Report for us to be even more worried


about the Bill, but the clause allows the Secretary of State, on the basis of the pilot schemes and the reports on them, simply to apply the results
generally, and on a permanent basis, in relation to relevant elections of any description".
We are going way beyond what is prudent, sensible or wise, dealing as we are with something as sensitive and basic as electoral law.
My amendment would delete the clause altogether and I am advised that the effect would be that the Secretary of State would be obliged to resort to primary legislation widely to apply the results of a pilot. That is what I am after. I am not satisfied that it is sufficient to have an order made, even with the approval of each House of Parliament, which is provided for in subsection (4). As we all know, one of the many problems with that approach is that statutory instruments are not amendable, so we face the prospect of the Secretary of State being enthused by one of these experiments and implementing such a change to the electoral process right across the country, by order. To my mind, that weakness and danger is inherent in such an approach.
It would be one thing if all those matters had been carefully researched, and perhaps the Minister will tell me again about his working party, for which I still have no enthusiasm. He might, however, tell me of the thoroughness with which the working party operated and how it foresaw all those difficulties, saying that it cannot be blamed for all the flaws in the Bill that have emerged. They would be down to the parliamentary draftsman, not the working party.
Did the working party ever envisage that, as a result of the measures that will be put in place by this ill-begotten Bill, a relatively small pilot—implemented, for example, in St. Helens—could attract the attention of the Secretary of State, who might decide that it could be equally implemented in Caithness and Sutherland on the one hand and Cornwall on the other? According to the clause, the Secretary of State could come to the House and say, "By order, I have decided that this scheme is a jolly good idea and the whole country will now have it." Given the rather slender accountability that statutory instruments regrettably provide for us, that could be done. We were criticised for having the gall to scrutinise the Bill, but how much less scrutiny would a statutory instrument provide before the electoral law of the entire country might be changed?
I make a plea. My amendment would have the simple effect of removing the clause from the Bill so that we could all have the reassurance—the guarantee—that, were we ever to face the prospect of changes being made to our electoral law based on the slender evidence of perhaps only one pilot scheme, even if it were to take place in St. Helens, the Secretary of State would have to produce primary legislation, with all that that implies. It would have to go through the full process of scrutiny, unless it were truncated by the Government of the day, and then, and only then, would there be a general change in electoral law.
This is an important part of the Bill and the brevity of my remarks should not be taken as in any way diminishing the importance that I attach to the measure. My point, which I believe is very important, almost makes itself and I hope that the Minister, if he is unable to accept the deletion of the clause, will give us a jolly good story

indeed as to what reassurances we shall have that changes will not be made—to our electoral law, no less—on the basis of some slender and rather obscure pilot scheme.

Mr. Hancock: Once again, I find myself agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The amendment makes a lot of sense, and I wonder whether the clause is necessary and what was the motive for including it. Like many Members, I welcome the idea of change and I am sure that we are all delighted that, as we heard from the Minister, 44 local authorities have applied for changes to be made. I hope that there will be a good, countrywide expression of the benefits that can be derived from such changes and that many are agreed to by the Home Office so that they can be implemented fairly quickly.
I must, however, ask Ministers to be cautious. They must not rush to accept the results of one or two pilot schemes. As I am sure most Members on both sides of the House agree, we must see what develops over a period—a minimum of two or three elections—before the Government are able to reflect the success or otherwise of the schemes, and direct the House to decide whether it wishes the nation to be covered by the arrangement involved. Any Secretary of State who rushed into implementation of a scheme—laudable though it might be, and successful in a specific area—and suggested that it would be acceptable in other areas would be making a serious error.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to put caution to the fore. I see no possibility other than the deletion of clause 11. It is not possible to tinker with the clause; it is all or nothing. I should be sorry if the matter were not forced to a Division, because this is a critical part of the Bill, and one that I oppose vehemently.
Ultimately, primary legislation must be the only way of introducing effective change nationwide. I hope that the Minister will see the sense of what is being proposed, and will accept that deleting clause 11 would be a help rather than a hindrance. It would enable other local authorities to chance their arm with a pilot scheme, or an adaption of one of the 44 that are proposed.
I also hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues with the aim of ensuring that the House is given a full report of the reasons for and against acceptance of the pilot schemes that have been submitted. It is interesting to learn that 44 have been submitted, but I should like to know why only 30 have been accepted, and why the others have been refused. Following a debate on legislation such as this, hon. Members are entitled to know the thinking behind decisions to accept or reject pilot schemes.

Mr. William Ross: I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We are discussing an important part of the Bill, which I think should have been dealt with by means of primary legislation. I have been in the House long enough to know what "made by statutory instrument"—words that appear in clause 11(4) —means. Many statutory instruments appear on Order Papers. As a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that hundreds, if not thousands, go through on the nod every year, and that, in some instances, no parliamentary procedure is involved. We should think carefully.
I can envisage instances in which the only way in which to secure a debate on a statutory instrument in either House would be by means of a Prayer, involving a discussion lasting perhaps an hour and a half. If I am wrong and we would be allowed a day or more, well and good; but statutory instruments are not amendable, and statutory instrument procedure falls very far short of what I consider to be vital, given the sweeping powers possessed by the Home Secretary, whatever the Government involved.
3.45 pm
I am a signatory to amendment No. 26. I added my name to those of Conservative Members independently of them, as is normal procedure. The amendments that I myself tabled are all intended to discover what the consequences would be in some instances, and also to draw attention to the dangers of permanence—especially in the case of amendment No. 48, which asks for the removal of the words
and on a permanent basis".
Those words would mean that a change made by the Home Secretary would not apply merely to one or two, or even three or four, elections; it would be a permanent change, which could be reversed only by another statutory instrument—and I am not certain that even that would be possible. I suspect that such changes could be reversed only by primary legislation.
I object to the sweeping powers given to a Minister who has been enabled to change the system applying to any election, or to all elections, and to change any existing legislation in order to do that. I do not accept what I consider to be a lame excuse about consultation. I know what "consultation" means: it means that the Government will eventually tell the House what they are going to do and, if they have a large enough majority, force it through. That is not acceptable to me at any time, but it is particularly unacceptable to me in the context of electoral law, which is the basis for the presence of each and every one of us in this place. We depend on an electoral system that the people trust—a system that is above reproach—and we should not be giving such sweeping powers to anyone. The matter should be dealt with in the House, where it should be considered in detail and at length.
The Home Secretary put it very well when he said:
Electoral law is so fundamental to democracy that changes to it should, wherever possible, proceed by consensus." —[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 160.]
The qualification "wherever possible" negates the rest of the sentence. I am familiar with the concept of making what appears to be a very good statement, and then qualifying it out of existence. It is a favourite tactic of Ministers, and we have suffered much from it in Northern Ireland.
I do not think that we should proceed by consensus "wherever possible"; I think that we should always proceed by consensus. I do not think that any party, or any Member, would object to genuine improvements in the electoral system, and I believe that our proceedings last night and earlier today were not the right way in which to deal with electoral law. Consensus should be demonstrated by an overwhelming majority in Parliament, after long and careful consideration of the consequences.

As we know, it is amazing what comes out of the woodwork during the Committee and Report stages of Bills. Often, consequences and dangers are not apparent at first sight. The Bill introduces sweeping changes by the back door.
Amendment No. 49 also expresses my concern about the powers of the Home Secretary, but it proposes the removal of the words
with respect to the whole of the United Kingdom".
The proposal is universal, proving what I said earlier about the Home Secretary's powers covering each and every election. Amendment No. 50 proposes the removal of the next paragraph—
"if such elections are held only in a particular part of the United Kingdom, with respect to the whole of that part."
No one has yet explained why Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, England, a region thereof or a particular council area can have a system that is different from the rest. I believe that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We should try to have a universal system, applied across the board.
On amendment No. 51, it is not immediately apparent, but I believe that the words "district electoral area" can apply only to Northern Ireland; the single transferable vote system of proportional representation is used there. As written in the Bill, a district electoral area is not a whole council area. It is a part of a council area. It is a number of wards. It could be three, four, five, six, seven or eight wards, but it is not the whole council area.
Therefore, a peculiar and sweeping power will be given to the Secretary of State—I assume that it could be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—to ensure that one particular area of a council can elect people by one system and that another area in the same council can elect people by a different system. That cannot be acceptable.
I know that the Minister will stand up in a few minutes and say that that will not happen, but, under the legislation, it could. My experience is that, if something nasty can be done in Northern Ireland, it generally will be. Therefore, I am concerned about the measure.
We need to look at the clause's direct consequences in relation to the STV system. By-elections occasionally take place. Under STV, three, four or five council members could be elected, with votes tumbling from one to the other in order of preference, or allegedly so. It is a fairly mathematical job to work it out. Calculators must be used to get it done.
I remember losing a very good councillor because, at one point, he was two fifths of a vote short of getting to the next stage. It is remarkable. People do not lose by one vote in Northern Ireland; they lose by a fraction of a vote. It was interesting that he lost. Eventually, we got someone whom we did not like because many of the votes did not transfer the next time round. The consequences are unforeseen. We can never know what will happen as the votes tumble down the chute.
Whenever we come to a by-election, that is not what happens. We transfer the votes only until someone has one over the half; it is not even 51 per cent. It is a modified system of first past the post, or first past the 50 per cent. barrier. Therefore, we need to be careful about what will happen if some fancy scheme is introduced for by-elections in Northern Ireland, rather than for PR elections for a council area, for councils in


the whole of Northern Ireland, for the Assembly, or even for Europe. That part of the Bill raises a number of interesting and important questions for Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 53 aims to leave out parliamentary elections—those to this place—from the list of relevant elections. Again, the measure raises questions. The other elections that I aim to leave out are in whole or in part to do with Northern Ireland. They include elections to the European Parliament, where, again, the STV system is used in Northern Ireland, and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We are being told once more that changes can be made to the system of electing European Members in Northern Ireland by passing a simple Order in Council through the House. We can go back to first past the post. We can have some sort of list system. God knows what we might have.
At present, we have the STV system, which I object to anyway because it is different in every respect from the system that is used on this side of the Irish sea. Again, for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we have STV, with six Members per parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. Again, one system could be used in one part of Northern Ireland and another in another. Anything could be introduced that we would not wish to be foisted on us. My amendment would also leave out local elections in Northern Ireland, which I have already discussed.
I say it yet again: I firmly believe that such changes, either for the whole of the UK or any part thereof, should not be made by order. They should made in Northern Ireland only where a clear majority of the Members representing the Province in this place are in favour of them, and only by primary legislation. It is fundamental to our democracy that we have an honest system of election. I do not want it to be undermined by fancy footwork and misrepresentation of the will of the people.

Mr. Evans: Much has been said about consensus on the general thrust of the Bill. Yes, there is much consensus, but there is much concern as well over clause 11 and the sweeping powers that will be transferred to the Home Secretary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) ably moved amendment No. 26, for which I have enormous sympathy.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that it is only the Home Secretary? Surely it is only the Home Secretary with regard to Great Britain, although powers may be devolved powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power over electoral matters there.

Mr. Evans: The Bill certainly transfers powers to the Home Secretary to take wide-ranging powers once pilots have taken place. The Home Secretary can then extend schemes to a number of other elections. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about other Ministers being able to utilise power. The Minister may say something about that in his winding-up speech.
I have enormous sympathy for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. We know what happens in relation to statutory instruments in the House. We have talked a lot about scrutiny of the Bill on the Floor of the House but, when a power is transferred

to the Home Secretary and a statutory instrument is introduced, the scrutiny and amount of publicity that are given to the statutory instrument are not the same.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, if, for example, we have a maverick Home Secretary in 2015 who suddenly decides that he or she wants a particular voting system following an experiment in East Kilbride or somewhere else, the publicity generated against such a maverick scheme will not be mighty enough to ensure that there will be no chance of that silly statutory instrument getting through?

Mr. Evans: No doubt even in St. Helens there will be publicity along those lines if there is a maverick scheme from a maverick Home Secretary, but who is to say that it will not, on the face of it, be a maverick scheme, but a well-thought-out and calculated scheme? It may come from a Home Secretary not from the hon. Gentleman's party, but from some other party, which the House would reject if it were given the opportunity of a full debate.
We are talking about scrutiny of an important constitutional area. That is why I believe that we need to get it absolutely right and why we have tabled amendments Nos. 34 and 35. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) spoke about the need for proper evaluation of any of the pilot schemes. That is what Conservative Members will be carefully looking for.
4 pm
The Opposition are still uncertain about when the pilots will be fully evaluated. The Minister said today that 44 pilot schemes have been submitted to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary, his officials—perhaps even the Minister, particularly after the good work that he did on his own working party—will have to examine those schemes before deciding which ones to allow. After the announcement on the successful schemes, we should like to hear the Home Secretary's reasons for refusing the other schemes, so that the Opposition and local authorities may see the reasoning behind the Home Secretary's decisions.
We tabled amendment No. 35 to extend the time available for reflection on the pilots at least beyond the next general election, and specified the date of January 2003. We believe that, if the amendment is accepted, the pilots conducted this year and in 2001 could be properly considered. To date—while the Bill is still being considered by Parliament—44 schemes have been proposed. After the Bill is passed, there will be even more publicity about pilots. Once the pilots are up and running—the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that one will be conducted in his area, covering six of his wards—

Mr. Bermingham: Four.

Mr. Evans: Nevertheless, six wards will be covered, at a cost of £5,000.
Once we start deviating from traditional Thursday voting, there will he much publicity and interest in how those polls fare. Consequently, I believe that, next year, the Home Secretary will be confronted with proposals on far more than 44 schemes. If people believe that the May 2000 pilot schemes are successful, and that they may be


implemented at reasonable cost without imposing prohibitive costs on local ratepayers, other local authorities will want to participate, following in the footsteps of local authorities that have already conducted trials.
As the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said, the pilots should be nationwide. The Home Secretary may approve some schemes for trial in only one part the United Kingdom, and—for a variety of reasons, such as the nature and stability of the constituency, and regardless of the new rolling registers—those schemes may be a total success. However, it does not follow that, simply because a scheme is successful in one part of the country, it will be adopted, fully embraced and enjoy equal success in another part of the country.
Many commercial firms conduct trials of products in one part of the country before launching them nationwide, as they want to know how the product might do nationally before incurring the expense of a nationwide launch. Similarly, before the Home Secretary issues his evaluation of the schemes, the Government will be conducting trials. In some parliamentary and European elections, the Home Secretary may wish to adopt schemes for use across the country. Once a statutory instrument to that effect has been passed, it will be the first time that some areas have deviated from traditional Thursday voting in that type of election. We shall have to examine the results of those elections very carefully.
The most recent nationwide trial in the United Kingdom was conducted in the previous European elections—when we adopted d'Hondt and regional lists, and when voter turnout, at just over 23 per cent., was derisory. I assume that the Home Secretary, upon examining those results, will have reached the same conclusion that I have—that the public did not embrace the regional list system, and that they perhaps did not like even the regions themselves. In the north-west, millions of people have 10 Members of the European Parliament, from various political parties, and do not know which one to go to. The constituency link has been broken, and many people may not even know the name of their MEP. People have conducted their own trial of the new voting system, and—as the turnout figures show—they do not like it.
We propose that, for the schemes that the Home Secretary is being asked to approve, before he uses the powers conferred on him by the Bill, in some cases there should be one full year of consideration, and in others there should be at least two years. We are asking for extensive consideration, and not only because of the costs involved. The figure of £5,000 was mentioned to implement a scheme in six wards, but that is only one small example. The costs of weekend voting will be even greater. If voting were done on only one weekend day—the Minister has assured us that that will not happen—people will have to be paid at time and a half. If there is voting on Sundays, people may have to be paid at double time, imposing enormous cost.
If the Home Secretary, after considering the results of a local pilot scheme, decides that general elections should be held on weekends, and if he makes it obligatory in a statutory instrument, enormous costs will be imposed on local authorities across the country. I am not aware of any assistance to local authorities to meet that extra cost. Currently, local authorities volunteer to spend ratepayers' money to conduct trials of new schemes. They will not be

able to volunteer to comply with a statutory instrument, but will have to find the money to do so from within their own budgets. Subsequently, other spending will have to be cut, or council tax will have to rise.
We still do not know how many of the 44 schemes will be accepted, and it will be interesting to see how many are. There may not be many pilots in 2000. Regardless of the number, we shall at least be putting a toe in the water.
It will require at least a full year before we are able to determine whether a pilot has caused the vote in local elections to increase or decrease. Although we know from published figures that there has been a decline in polling numbers, particularly at local elections, we do not know what turnout criteria the Home Secretary will use to judge the success of the pilots conducted this year and next year.
How will the Home Secretary judge whether the decline in turnout has been arrested? Even if the numbers decline is stopped, how will he determine whether it has been stopped by the pilot, or whether the pilot has prevented the decline from being more severe? We do not know how he will make those determinations.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another problem is that, next May, only a third of metropolitan areas will be polling, and that shire counties, London and district councils will not be polling? The experiment will be conducted only in certain areas.

Mr. Hancock: Some districts are polling.

Mr. Bermingham: Yes; I am grateful for that intervention. The results of the experiment will not be nationwide, and we should perhaps be cautious in considering them.

Mr. Evans: I agree completely. There are 44 pilots, but we do not know how many of them will be accepted. This year and next year, there will be only limited pilots in the United Kingdom. Local elections will not be held simultaneously across the United Kingdom for three years. The Home Secretary, using the powers that we confer on him in clause 11, may decide to use those elections to conduct a trial of a new voting scheme for the entire United Kingdom, prior to changing the system used for Westminster parliamentary elections.

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman's fears may be unfounded, because the votes will be counted under a first-past-the-post system, so the trials will not necessarily change the overall strategy of voting. Clause 11 does not give the Home Secretary the power to introduce proportional representation.

Mr. Evans: I agree. Proportional representation was not considered by the working group. If any local authority proposed a pilot scheme that included the use of proportional representation, the Home Secretary's bin would not be far away. The Bill does not give him the power to agree to such a pilot anyway, but it gives him power in other areas. That is why I am anxious that we should get the trials right this year and next. As we suggest in amendment No. 35, there should be a longer period of evaluation before the Home Secretary is able to introduce a new system nationwide for local or Westminster parliamentary elections.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) mentioned the integrity of the vote. If polling takes place on more than one day, people will need to ensure that there is great security. If there are any errors, future pilots could be jeopardised. One local authority failing to take proper precautions could result in a good idea not being developed in other areas. We have also asked whether the ability of the political parties to cope with voting taking place on a different day or on a number of days could be taken into account in the evaluation. We are all part of the system. Candidates, canvassers and tellers all have a role to play in the election procedure. Not everybody is entirely happy with the telling arrangements.
I am sure that we have all encountered voters at polling stations who refuse to give us their number, because they feel that that would give us more information than just the fact that they had gone to vote. They do not fully appreciate the fact that we take numbers to ensure that we do not waste their time—never mind ours—later in the day when we knock on doors or phone people to encourage them to vote. I hope that giving extra time for the evaluation procedure will enable us to consider the ability of the political parties to participate in the changed voting arrangements.
The Home Secretary will also be given powers to introduce voting a lot earlier than polling day. Early voting may be permitted on a number of days, with the polling booths open for more than just two days. I read one suggestion about mobile polling, with ballot boxes being taken to a place of work, a residential home, a nursing home or even a small village with only two or three houses where the people are disadvantaged by having to travel a long way to vote. For example, there is the case of Paralchina in Australia, which is miles from anywhere. The ballot box is taken to the villagers. The authorities ensure that everybody votes by going to them. The villagers all know when the ballot box is coming, because it is one of the most exciting things that happens in Paralchina, apart from the train going in and out.
Some villages in this country might benefit from mobile polling, but we need to see how the idea will work. We shall want to be privy to such an experiment and to ensure the integrity of polling boxes that move around the country. The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that, in Northern Ireland, if bad things can happen, they will. Mobile polling boxes travelling round the country could present an opportunity for fraudulent voting if we are not careful.
4.15 pm
The possibility of voting in supermarkets has also been mentioned. The Home Secretary may well find from pilots that it works. Some hon. Members said in Committee that the last thing that people out shopping wanted to do was go and vote, but shopping centres and big supermarkets attract many people. It is worth giving local authorities the opportunity to set up a mobile polling station in a supermarket car park to see what the response is. Some families like to vote together and wait until the entire family is home before going to the polling station, but for others that is not possible and they might want to vote while they are out at the supermarket.
Not everybody voting at a supermarket would necessarily live in the local polling area. They might come from another part of the town or city to go shopping and

then pop into the polling station. We have to evaluate the idea properly because, without proper proof of identity—we appear to have decided against requiring that—people can assume a false identity and be crossed off the list at the supermarket but not off the other list at the polling station, perhaps a few miles away, where the real voter could then vote as well. If all the polling stations were linked by computer, there would be less of a problem, but having polling in a supermarket as well as at the local polling station gives greater opportunity for personation.
We need proper safeguards and better evaluation of the dangers of personation. We have already agreed that scant research is being done on that. I have heard of people at polling stations being told that they have already voted and other hon. Members may know similar examples. Without more research on personation, how can we properly evaluate whether a pilot is successful on that count if we do not know the base line?

Mr. William Ross: There is another aspect of that issue. At a parliamentary election, people voting at the supermarket may not even know who their local candidates are. How can we determine which constituency they live in and how will the information be conveyed from one constituency to another? In most of the elections that I have fought, a few ballot papers have turned up from other constituencies. God knows how they got there. I assume that they were postal votes that went astray in some way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in danger of going into too much detail about individual schemes rather than talking about the amendments.

Mr. Evans: I am coming towards the end of my contribution. I want to ensure that the Home Secretary has enough time to evaluate the great number of pilot schemes. We all know about the problem with supermarket voting that the hon. Member for East Londonderry referred to. I hold a surgery at a supermarket when shoppers can come and chat with me about whatever their problems are. I know that other Members of Parliament do the same. When I ask where they live, I sometimes find that they are from outside my constituency. I then advise them to see their Member of Parliament. The catchment area of a supermarket may cover more than one constituency. It would be more expensive and time consuming, but polling stations at supermarkets that cover more than one constituency might need to make provision for voters from neighbouring constituencies. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that can be done.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat that the hon. Gentleman is going into too much detail about individual schemes. The debate is time limited and we want to make best use of the valuable time available.

Mr. Evans: I hope that the Minister will take on board the date that we have suggested. We want the pilots to take place, but they need to be properly evaluated. The pilots will be limited this year and next. It would be dangerous for the Home Secretary to be confident of his conclusions after a few brief experiments. We would need further evaluation before extending the experiment countrywide, perhaps against the wishes of some local authorities. I hope that the Minister will reassure us.

Mr. Bermingham: As to the security of the boxes on a two-day vote, the answer is simple. At present, when a count takes place not immediately, but the next day—as happens in a number of constituencies at a general election—the boxes containing the voting lists are sealed. Verification takes place the next day, and there is never a problem. At the end of the first day's polling in a two-day vote, one would seal the lids of the boxes for that day and verify them. The next day would be verified also, with a separate box. There does not seem to be a problem in that respect.
I am keen that these experiments be looked at carefully, and I am equally keen that the bid made by my local authority—which covers my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) —be accepted. However, that is a matter for the Home Secretary in due course.
In St. Helens, voting in some central areas has decreased. In local authority elections, we get a turnout of 20 per cent., and in the European elections we were down to 14 per cent. That is never satisfactory for whoever wins. We must hope that we can stimulate interest again, so that turnouts for local and national elections are about 70 per cent. At the last election, the turnout in my seat was about 65 per cent. The reason for the drop is the nature of the area, and the nature of the problems that we have. The experiments are therefore a good idea.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to think about clause 11 as it is drafted and the conclusions that are to be drawn. I would like to see experiments and evaluation in different areas, as different factors affect different areas and the voting intentions there.
The experiments should be carried out over, perhaps, three or four local government elections—the best place to test these matters. Then we can look at whether double-day voting, single-day voting on a different day or no change is the answer. I understand the purpose of the amendment, but it would be short-sighted.
It would be better for the Minister to leave clause 11 as, in the long term, it is probably the answer. As Governments come and go, legislation can change. Just as with statutory instruments, everything on the electoral system is scrutinised. My experience here over more than a decade and a half has taught me that certain statutory instruments are never overlooked and are debated at some length.
The experiments should be over a number of years and different local government elections—including county, district and metropolitan. Elections in the City of London could be used. There are one or two experiments that I would like there, so that we could get some democracy. Before you call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will go no further down that line, and I will make my points in respect of the City at the appropriate time.
I urge the Minister to show breadth of vision and experimentation, and then draw his conclusions.

Mr. George Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) must be thinking of some other Ministers when he calls on me to show breadth of vision. I am more of a nuts-and-bolts man. Nevertheless, I will bear his strictures in mind.
The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talked about different electoral arrangements applying in different parts of the same local authority. However, under

clause 11, whole local authority areas could be excluded, but not particular parts of a local authority. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to supermarkets, a matter we discussed in Committee. No pilot would be approved unless it included arrangements to make sure that the register was networked. If someone votes in a supermarket, that vote will be registered immediately by the electronic equipment and deleted from the register. Hopefully, that would prevent the kind of abuse that the hon. Gentleman fears.

Mr. Hancock: Would that be an essential condition of any pilot scheme incorporating voting in a supermarket?

Mr. Howarth: Unless the application for a pilot scheme could demonstrate that it was capable of that—I do not want to be prescriptive as to how—the Home Secretary would have no choice but to turn it down, simply because it would not meet any practical test in terms of someone voting more than once. It is a fair point, but it is covered.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to the cost of the roll-out of any pilot schemes. That cost will fall on the local authorities themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South indicated what he takes to be the cost in St. Helens. At this stage, I do not have enough information to say what the typical cost would be. I suspect that the costs will not be unduly prohibitive—indeed, no local authority would submit a pilot application if it felt that the costs involved were prohibitive.
The costs of general and European parliamentary elections are met out of the Consolidated Fund. If there were to be further developments, they would be costed in that way.
I intend to say a word in a moment about publishing the evaluations, but it would be unnecessary and heavy-handed if either the Home Office or the House tried to impose some particular methodology on them. The expectation is that local authorities will carry the evaluations out in as vigorous, objective and professional a manner as we would all expect. I have no reason to believe that that will not be the case.
Amendment No. 26, moved by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have the effect of removing clause 11 from the Bill. However, the clause is crucial to the Bill, as it will enable successful innovations to be rolled out. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about this measure, and I suspect that those concerns have increased, rather than decreased. There is not a great deal that I can do about that—it is in the nature of debate that some people will remain to be convinced. However, I share his concerns in this respect—the desire to see that the rights of this House and Parliament are upheld. However, his fears are misplaced and I shall explain why. Clause 10 will allow local authorities to apply to run pilot schemes at particular local elections. All those pilot schemes will have to be fully evaluated and a copy of the evaluation report must be sent to the Secretary of State within three months of the election concerned. That is a reasonable length of time for the sort of evaluation that we would all expect to see carried out.
4.30 pm
I am happy to assure the House that all such evaluation reports will be published and that copies of the reports will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, so that the process will be open and transparent. It will be open to any Member to read the evaluation of any pilot, and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will pore over them with great thoroughness.
Let us consider what would happen if a particular innovation were to prove a great success. Perhaps it had been tried in several local authorities with varying demographic complexions. Turnouts had increased and the evaluations had shown that the electorate welcomed the innovation. In such cases, why would we not wish to apply the innovation more widely and as quickly as possible? If the amendments were to be accepted, the innovation could not be applied until well into the next Parliament, no matter how successful the pilot scheme or how successful the innovation.
I suspect that the electorate would find it hard to understand why some successfully piloted procedures could not apply to them the next time they went to the polling station. Indeed, as a Member of Parliament, let alone as a Minister, I would not like to have to explain to the electorate that, although better procedures had been proved successful in pilots, they had to wait for Parliament to re-examine the issue and to decide whether the innovations should be applied more widely through primary legislation.

Mr. Hancock: Is the Minister saying that pilots can be tried for one election only? Is there any reason why a scheme successfully piloted by a local authority in May this year could not be repeated in May next year?

Mr. Howarth: No, but a separate application would have to be made for a separate pilot. If pilots are successful, they may spread. For example, let us suppose a pilot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South proved to be successful—knowing the local authority, I am sure that it would. If that happened, and given the symbiotic relationship that I know exists between Knowsley and St. Helens—I live close to the border of my hon. Friend's constituency—the people of Knowsley would ask why they could not have the system, too. My hon. Friend is well aware that political events in St. Helens tend to find echoes in Knowsley, and vice versa.
If amendment No. 26 were accepted, we could not roll out any change except by introducing further primary legislation. As the House knows, the demands for legislative slots always exceed the amount of parliamentary time available. Who knows when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might be able to secure a slot for the necessary legislation?

Mr. Forth: Good.

Mr. Howarth: Somehow I knew the right hon. Gentleman would find that an attractive proposition, but the rest of us—including, possibly, the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues—might not. It is our hope that we will have a steady stream of pilots over the next few years and it is quite possible that each year one or more innovations will emerge that are successful.
As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a good-natured and patient person, but I imagine if the Home Secretary were to say to her, "It is possible that I will need slots for one or more electoral procedures Bills for each of the next few Sessions," she might respond with a few choice words.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister mentioned the need for a slot for primary legislation, but the Bill provides that, if a prayer is signed by the Leader of the Opposition and a considerable proportion of his right hon. and hon. Friends, the Leader of the House would have to find a one and a half hour slot—and there could be a lot of those.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman, as ever, has anticipated me. As I was saying, it would be difficult to justify to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the need for regular electoral process Bills.
The notion of pilot schemes came from the working party on electoral procedures and, at the risk of incurring the ire of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall quote its final report:
Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out widely without the need for further primary legislation.
Although that places no obligation on the right hon. Gentleman, even he will appreciate that it places an obligation on me to ensure that the legislation envisaged by the working party—which included representatives of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—reaches the statute book. We have followed that recommendation closely in framing the Bill. No member of the working party dissented from it, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find himself able, in his generous way, to withdraw his amendment.
I also hope that the hon. Member for East Londonderry has taken some comfort from my remarks. His amendments were designed to prevent any roll-out of successful innovations from applying to Northern Ireland. I understand the source of his concerns, because we have discussed it many times before, and I know that they are based on experience of the possible difficulties of ensuring the integrity of the ballot. However, even allowing for the difficulties that we know exist in Northern Ireland, that approach is perhaps excessively negative. There may be innovations that we have not even thought of that prove to be a great success and from which the people of Northern Ireland would wish to benefit. I cannot rule out that possibility. I know that the problems of turnout mentioned by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and others are not of the same magnitude in Northern Ireland, but anything that makes voting easier and more convenient should not be ruled out, even though we do not yet know the precise form that it will take.
I have already explained that all the information on which to decide whether an innovation should be rolled out will be made freely available to the House, and that Parliament will have every opportunity to discuss the merits of any proposed roll-out. That seems a much more sensible way to proceed than simply to seek a blanket exclusion from the process for Northern Ireland.
On the basis that something may turn up, as Mr. Micawber put it, for Northern Ireland, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Forth: The temptation in circumstances such as these is to respond to an argument on the basis that one


likes and trusts the people who have made it. Because they have been charming, one is inclined to feel that a measure is safe in their hands. I am tempted in that way today because of the way in which the Minister has put the argument.
The problem is that neither the Minister nor the Home Secretary, whom we all admire so much, will not be in their posts for the rest of time. It is possible that people will be appointed who, under clause 11, will be empowered to take a different view and act in a less trustworthy way. I accept what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government and, on balance, it would be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the House of Lords will look again at this and other matters.
The irony is that, as long as the House of Lords remains unelected—a fact that I consider unfortunate—we will be asking unelected people to consider a Bill that bears directly on our electoral process. However, I hope that their Lordships will take a view closer to mine than to the Minister's.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

REGISTRATION: AMENDMENTS OF THE 1983 ACT

Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 19, leave out lines 45 to 50 and insert—
(7) Each registration officer may, as he thinks fit, conduct an enquiry or canvass in relation to part or all of an electoral register at any time, notwithstanding sub-section (1) of this section.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 32, in page 19, line 50, at end insert—
(8) Each registration officer shall each month, or seven days before any poll, contact all registrars of births, deaths and marriages covering the area for which he is responsible, in order to ascertain the names and addresses of those persons deceased within the previous month, and shall remove such deceased persons from the register within three working days of ascertaining this information.".

Mr. Evans: I shall be brief, as the amendments are self-explanatory and I want the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who attended every day of our deliberations in Committee, to be able to move his amendments. Time will also be needed for Third Reading.
The amendments would ensure that the electoral registration officer is encouraged to keep the rolling register as up to date as possible. It would empower him to make regular canvasses of inquiries for all or part of the register, as he saw fit. It would also encourage him to collaborate with all registrars of births, marriages and deaths in the area to ensure that the register is kept up to date.
Some hon. Members will know of a film called "Dead Man Walking", but the amendment is designed to avoid a sequel that might be called "Dead Man Voting". That happens at general and local elections, but the amendment

would mean that the names of people who die are taken off the register, so that other people cannot use those names to vote.

Mr. Barnes: I do not want to filibuster my own time, but I shall speak very briefly to these amendments.
Canvassing activity is very important. In Northern Ireland, complete canvasses are conducted when electoral registers are compiled. That does not happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and the Northern Ireland lesson is one from which we could all learn.
Amendment No. 32 proposes collaborating with the registrars of births, deaths and marriages to remove the names of dead people from electoral registers. That is an important matter. Widows and widowers should not be bothered by polling cards and election addresses for their dead spouses, or by people knocking on their doors to find out why those dead people have not voted.
Many returning officers may already have access to such information, but they cannot use it to delete names from the register. That is what Mr. Bradley, the returning officer for Northern Ireland, told the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. The anomaly causes great difficulty when it comes to handling personation.
Personation is less likely to be of dead people than of people who do not normally vote, but I feel remiss that I did not table an amendment along the same lines. My previous proposals for rolling registers are based on the principle that accurate registers of local voters depend on the ability of the registration officer to remove the names of those who have left an area, or died. This is an important amendment.

Mr. Hancock: I support the amendment, as I am sure do my Liberal Democrat colleagues. To implement it, electoral registration officers must have the necessary resources. At present, the resources are devoted to the accurate maintenance of electoral registration are inadequate.
What is proposed is only common sense. The Home Office and Ministers with responsibility for local government must give real credibility to statements about the need for accuracy, maintenance and regular updating of electoral registration facilities. At present, those facilities are pitiful and are a real deterrent to voting. People are often offended at receiving poll cards for relatives who have died, and I have known them turn up at the polling station and refuse to vote as a protest against such inefficiency. I am aware of instances in which polling cards have been sent to people who have been dead for many years.
The amendment is long overdue.
4.45 pm

Mr. William Ross: Would it not be possible for registrars of births, deaths and marriages to send a list of the names of those who have died to the people responsible for electoral registration? That could be done once a week, or once a month, as required.

Mr. Hancock: That is an excellent suggestion, but the question is one of resources. The funding for the registrars of births, deaths and marriages is inadequate and needs to be revised.
I want the amendment to be adopted, and the suggestion from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is worth pursuing. However, extra resources must be devoted to the task.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Amendment No. 33 is a deceptive little amendment, since the words that it seeks to delete from the Bill are more important than the words that it seeks to add.
It is an unfortunate fact that, every year, a large number of households fail to return their electoral registration form. Electoral registration officers are assiduous in chasing missing forms, often paying several visits to the properties concerned. Even then, there are some properties from which no information is forthcoming. In such circumstances, a practice has evolved of keeping names on the register for a year in the absence of any evidence that the person concerned has moved out. We believe that this is right. In cases of uncertainty, the decision should always be to keep people on the register rather than disfranchising them.
New section 10(7) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which schedule 1 to the Bill inserts, will simply put the existing practice on a statutory footing. I am sorry that the Opposition seek to remove the provision, since to do so would ultimately deny people the right to vote. I am sure that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) was not aware of the result of such a deletion. Although I have some sympathy with the point that he made, the Conservative attempt to slip this through is far more worrying.
The Conservative Opposition want to insert a provision allowing registration officers to carry out an inquiry or canvass at any time of the year. In principle, that is entirely unobjectionable. But I wonder, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South suggested, how realistic it would be in practice. Registration officers find it difficult, costly and labour-intensive carrying out one canvass each year. I doubt whether they have the resources or the inclination to carry out a second. Do the Opposition want the Government to increase the grants to local authorities to pay for their amendment? If so, we will note such an expenditure commitment. Or do they merely want to impose the burden but not will the means?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that I recently tabled a number of questions inquiring about the cost of registering an elector in the various sub-divisions of the United Kingdom. He will find it of interest.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly look with interest at the answers, which I presume came from me.
The key to the amendment is canvassing all the areas, which is what the Conservative Opposition appear to want. Amendment No. 32 would require electoral registration officers to consult the local registrars of births, marriages and deaths with a view to removing the names of the deceased from the register. Apart from the fact that people do not always conveniently die in the area where they are registered, the amendment is unnecessary.
In line 22 of page 26 of the Bill, paragraph 23(3) of schedule 1 provides that registration officers will be able to inspect records kept by
any local or public authority".
That encompasses not just records that are publicly available, such as the local register of births, deaths and marriages, but those to which he would not otherwise have access.
Perhaps I should say in passing, with regret, that, in this group of amendments and in others that we have discussed today, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in whose name the amendment appears, seems much keener on keeping people off the electoral register than in ensuring that as many people as possible are on it. I hope that, in the light of my comments, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) will decide to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Evans: Nothing malicious was intended by the amendments. Indeed, I am wounded by the allegation that that was our intent. It certainly was not. We want to ensure that the rolling register is kept as up to date as possible and that we empower the electoral registration officer—no, there is no spending commitment here—to ensure that the register is up to date.
The Minister says that he regrets that people do not conveniently die. I do not think that anybody conveniently dies—I suspect that in most cases they do not have a say in the matter. However, I understand that, after the 1997 election, the registration officers in one London borough that covered two constituencies did a trawl of their registers and removed more than 11,000 names because so many had been left on for so long. That can be a problem.

Mr. Simon Hughes: One merit of such a system is that it avoids any political controversy resulting from politicians trying to sort out the register themselves. I once submitted a list and made a mistake about a couple of names; people were clearly alive and well when I had passed them off as having disappeared, on the basis of good advice. I paid about a year's political price for having been so bold as to suggest that they would not be voting, given that they were very much alive and wanted to do so. So I would far rather someone else did the job.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that a number of electors disappear when they see the hon. Gentleman coming towards their door.
We are simply keen to ensure that the register is kept up to date. In addition, if the register is inaccurate and, as happened in one case, it includes thousands of names of people who are not there to vote, the percentage of the turnout at elections will be that much lower. The more accurate the register, the higher the turnout will be. Having said that, I am sure that the other place will consider carefully what has been said today, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 22, line 22, at end insert
', unless it is made as a result of a notice issued pursuant to subsection (1)(e) above'.
Schedule 1 deals with registration and amends the 1983 Act. Paragraph 6 relates to the publication of registers, and provides for the alteration of registers and the


circumstances in which that may occur. It allows for alterations when electoral returning officers have made clerical errors. That will not be allowed after the issuing of nominations.
In the winter edition of its publication Arena, the Association of Electoral Administrators supported the Bill but pointed out a problem:
Whilst most of the proposals contained in the Bill will meet with the approval of the Association members, to many it will be felt that new Section 13A(4) does not go far enough. It does not enable the Electoral Registration Officer to correct his/her own clerical error brought to their attention in the period between the last day for submissions for nominations for an election and polling day. It is during this period that most of the omissions and clerical errors are detected.
That happens because that is the period in which most people pay attention to the electoral register. That is when the political parties canvass the electorate. When details are brought to the attention of the public, they may find that the details that they have submitted are not on the register, or not on it correctly. People should have some opportunity to correct errors made by electoral returning officers. I appreciate that that may require some facility for double checking before an election so that everyone is happy with the published details.
My amendment is intended to probe the Minister's thinking on this matter. Electoral returning officers themselves have identified a serious problem in the article to which I have referred.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I always pay close attention to amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) because I regard him as the father of the rolling register. His persistence has ensured that the Bill will introduce a system of rolling electoral registration.
I appreciate that that system does not go as far as my hon. Friend would wish. However, I hope that he will regard it as a first step on which we can build in due course. His amendment would mean that changes to the register which would be used at an election could be made after the closing date for nominations for that election where the alteration would merely correct a clerical error. I have considerable sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment, but there are problems with the way in which it would achieve that purpose.
In addition, there is a problem of principle. Changes should not be made to the register once the period of an election has begun. That is the current position as regards additions to the register, and the Bill replicates it under the system of rolling registration. Political parties and candidates need certainty about which, and how many, electors they will deal with at any election. The number of electors determines how much can be spent, and canvassing and leafleting will be targeted at known electors. We are reluctant to start to make exceptions to that basic principle.
However, my hon. Friend points out that his concern, and that of those to whom he has referred, is to correct a clerical error. It is difficult to object to allowing the correction of something that has been agreed to be a clerical error. However, it is possible to imagine some difference of view between individuals as to whether an error was merely clerical, or whether it had been made by

the person who was registering or by the officer, and would thus have an effect to which one of the parties in the election would not be able to subscribe.
There is potential for some conflict. However, my hon. Friend suggests that the measure would apply to only a relatively small number of cases and that it would be unlikely to affect the outcome of the vast majority of election campaigns. I shall look at the issue. I am reluctant to move along the lines that he suggests, for the reasons that I have outlined—candidates need certainty. I am, however, prepared to consider whether there might be some way of considering the matter; we might talk to electoral registration officers to find out whether they have concerns as to their inability to deal with a merely clerical error. In the light of those remarks, I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We support the proposition and, as the Minister appears to have given a reasonable reply, I hope that, before the Bill finishes its passage through Parliament, there will be a chance to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed. I understand the reservations, but the proposition is a good one if it can be correctly drafted.

Mr. Barnes: I am pleased that the Minister has offered to examine the matter, especially by discussing it with electoral returning officers. I understand the concerns as to the technical difficulties that may arise in getting the measure right. However, the matter of principle—that the register cannot be altered after nomination day—is not one to which I would generally adhere. Previously, I have tabled amendments to provide for altering the register after that period. The principle should be that the names of those entitled to be on the register at nomination day are the only ones that should be included. I hope that some thought will be given to the principle as well as to the practicalities and technicalities.
However, given the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

ABSENT VOTING IN GREAT BRITAIN

5 pm

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 34, line 48, after first "of", insert—
his attendance at an educational establishment, or

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 41, in page 34, line 51, at end insert—
'or
(ii) "a journey over land of three miles or more".

Mr. Barnes: Schedule 4 already contains a provision to enable people in various positions, occupations or services to obtain proxies. However, there is a difficulty for another group of people—students—whom I want to add to the provision. Currently, if students are away, for an indefinite period, from the area in which they are


registered, they are barred from inclusion on registers—especially for local elections. They should be added to the schedule.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may save my hon. Friend from trying to persuade me about amendment No. 40, if I point out that I am convinced by his argument, albeit not by the precise wording of the amendment. In due course, I shall seek to include the provision that he and I want—although not in precisely the form of his amendment.

Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear the Minister's response. I shall see how far I can get with amendment No. 41—although I tabled it more as a probing amendment.
There are provisions to cover proxy voting for those who have to make a journey by air or sea in order to vote. I am trying to deal with the problem of people who live in rural areas distant from polling stations. There is generally an agreement that people who live more than three miles from a school are entitled to free travel to the school, so three miles is the distance stated in the amendment. If people have to travel that far, they may experience considerably difficulty in getting to a polling station, and indeed some people may have even longer journeys.
I am not a great advocate of extending proxy voting; I tend to prefer the postal vote. It may be that the amendment should have been tabled to another part of the Bill. I am asking whether there is any means by which we can tackle the problem of people who live in isolated areas far from polling stations. This is not simply an extreme problem affecting people who live in the Western Isles; there are many parts of the country where people have difficulty getting to a polling station.

Mr. Simon Hughes: My colleagues and I have unintentionally crowded out the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in putting our names to the amendments—we outnumber him three to one. We are very happy to have supported an amendment, No. 40, which has found favour with the Minister. I am glad that he will table an amendment at a later stage to deal with that matter.
I want to say a few words of support for amendment No. 41. My first vote was cast in a little village in north Wales called Tan-y-grisiau, which was about three or four miles from the polling station. There was no public transport, and people who did not have their own transport, such as the elderly and infirm, could not get to the polling station unless they were offered a lift.
We support the hon. Gentleman's case, which is not simply about people who live in the Outer Hebrides and have to cross water to get to the polling station. People who are prevented from voting because they cannot get from A to B should be entitled to vote by proxy, as should be those who are prevented by illness, work or study. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.

Mr. O'Brien: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on the way in which he moved his amendment. As the House knows, the Bill makes a number of important changes but, on our reading of the law, the point about students and absent votes was not entirely clear, and my hon. Friend has indicated that the drafting of the Bill is deficient.
Although the wording of my hon. Friend's amendment is not correct, I give him a clear commitment that the Government will table an amendment to achieve exactly the same result. Such an amendment would simply put on a statutory footing the practice that already occurs.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend will not be as lucky with amendment No. 41, which would widen the existing grounds for proxy votes. I understand the arguments for doing so, but the Bill aims essentially to put in place the agreement that was hammered out by the working party on electoral procedures, which made it clear in its report that, although there were strong arguments for making it easier to obtain and cast postal votes, the same was not true of proxy votes.
There are number of on-going investigations into alleged proxy vote fraud—the House will understand that I do not wish to comment on those—which led the working party to conclude that this is not the right time to ease the rules governing proxy votes. I cannot therefore invite the House to accept the amendment, even though we all understand the arguments for it.
I hope that, having listened to what I have said, particularly my clear commitment on amendment No. 40, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Barnes: In speaking to amendment No. 41, I expressed concern about its use in connection with proxy votes. It might be preferable to ease the provisions for voting in areas where it is awkward at present and, perhaps, to allow the use of postal votes. However, because the Minister said that he was willing to accept amendment No. 40 by some other method, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 36, line 1, at end insert—
(2A) Where an application is granted under sub-paragraph (1) or (2), it shall be deemed to be an application to vote at all elections held on that day".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 43, in page 36, line 2, leave out "or (2)" and insert ", (2) or (2A)".

Mr. Barnes: At the last general election, which was combined with local government elections, returning officers had great difficulty in dealing with applications for temporary absent votes which specified the local election. The Home Office's advice was that applications must be made for both elections and that an application for the local election was not valid for the parliamentary elections. Most returning officers tended to ignore that advice as it was in the interests of the elector to be able to apply for an absent vote in both elections.
The Bill seems to perpetuate the current position in that people will have to apply separately to vote in both elections even though they may be held on the same day. The amendment would put into law what might be the standard shorthand practice that is used already by electoral returning officers. When elections are held together, one application should be sufficient.

Mr. Hancock: We support the amendment and congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire


(Mr. Barnes) on tabling it. I hope that the Minister will be generous enough to accept that this is a common-sense measure. Many of the 25 or so elections that I have fought have corresponded with other elections. For various reasons, European and parliamentary or county and district elections have all occurred at the same time. It is ludicrous that people should have to fill in two forms. There is no sense to that. One application for elections held on one day should be sufficient. It should be easy and simple enough for the Government to accept the amendment.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: We take the view that that practice is already the law. It is a matter of common sense that a person who applies for an absent vote for a particular election should not be required to make a separate application for any other election held on the same day. We believe that that is already the position and we are not aware—or, at least, have not been made aware—of any cases where returning officers have required the submission of separate applications.
We are more than happy to discuss with electoral administrators how the guidance can make it clear to them that the law requires them to have only one application form in the circumstances described. The amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) would require an application for an absent vote for a particular election to be treated in every case as an application for an absent vote at all elections on that day. However, as he well knows, some people—European Union citizens and peers, for example—are able to vote in some elections, but not in others. Such people may be entitled to vote in only one of the elections being held on a particular day and may make an absent vote application accordingly.
I hope that, in the light of what I have said and, in particular, the fact that we believe that a returning officer should already treat a single application as an application for all elections to which a person is entitled to vote to be held on the day, my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. However, if hon. Members have examples of returning officers requiring people to submit double applications, we shall be happy to take the matter up with them and to provide the clarification in guidance to ensure that they interpret the law properly.

Mr. Barnes: In view of my hon. Friend the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Order for Third Reading read.
5.14 pm

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read the Third time.
With the possible exceptions of the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members welcome the Bill and recognise that it represents in many ways a useful step forward.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He gave me considerable assistance in Committee on, as he

helpfully informed us, a no-fee basis. He also chaired the working party whose report forms the basis of the Bill. It is a good Bill, and it is a tribute to my hon. Friend's hard work and that of those who were on the working party with him that it has been brought forward. At least with most of its provisions, there has been much support from both sides of the House, and for the principles within it.
The new provisions relating to electoral registration are a good step forward, making it easier for remand prisoners, the homeless and those in mental hospitals to register to vote. These changes are long overdue.
The introduction of the rolling electoral registration will end the absurd situation in which, at present, people can wait for up to 16 months after moving house before appearing on the electoral register in respect of their new address. In future, the maximum period that most people will have to wait before getting on to the register will be six weeks, and in many instances it will be less than that.
I appreciate that the scheme may not be as elaborate as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) might like. Nevertheless, I hope that he will take both comfort and pleasure from the fact that something for which he has campaigned for a long time is coming to fruition, and that he will regard the system that the Bill will create as a stepping stone for the future.
There will be new information technology opportunities and new abilities to go further than at present in future years. However, it will be remembered of the Bill that the working party, which was chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, considered the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire and ensured that, where his ideas were able to be introduced at this stage, they were. Some of his other ideas will provide the basis for future legislation.
Having compiled an electoral register, questions arise as to what to do with it and to whom it should be made available. We had a good discussion about the sale of the register in Committee. I do not want to repeat all that I said on that occasion, but I shall emphasise that the Government believe that electors should be given the ability to have their name excluded from the register that is made available for sale. That is for privacy and data protection reasons. However, it is also a matter of principle. It is wrong that information that people are under a statutory obligation to provide—they could be fined if they do not do that—for one purpose should then be used for another without their consent.
We think that people must be given a choice, but it must be an informed choice. We want the electorate to be told what the consequences of opting out would be, and we are happy to work with the industries concerned to settle the content of the explanatory material. We are in discussion with the credit industry—my officials held a useful meeting with representatives of it only three days ago—to ascertain how we can ensure that its interests are best preserved within the scope of the system.
One of the most important parts of the Bill is clause 10, which allows for pilot schemes for innovative electoral procedures. Like the rest of the Bill, this derives directly from a recommendation of the working party. The working party recognised that the only reliable way to establish which of the many changes to our electoral procedures which have been touted are likely to be effective is to test them. That is to put them into practice


and see how they work, find out what the problems are and sort out any glitches. Subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent in time, we hope to be able to run the first pilot schemes in this coming May's local elections. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that many local authorities have already expressed an interest in running pilot schemes in May.
The Bill also makes it easier for those with disabilities to cast votes and simplifies our absent vote arrangements. I believe that these provisions are supported by most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am conscious that, in Committee, I made a number of other commitments to consider matters or to write to right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that the House will understand why it has not been possible for me to act on all of them in the short period since the end of consideration in Committee. I assure those hon. Members that I have not forgotten, and that I shall deal with those matters as quickly as possible. An advantage of a bicameral system is that amendments can be made in a second House.
The Bill is important and worth while. We have had our little difficulties with it: for example, a guillotine motion was tabled today. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) denied that it was hyperbole to describe a guillotine as damaging the fabric of our parliamentary democracy. However, he decided not to vote against the guillotine and asked me to note that he did not.

Mr. Evans: To save time.

Mr. O'Brien: I note that view, but I am bemused by the juxtaposition of the hon. Gentleman's claim and the action that he took. I also note that, at 5 pm, no Tory Back-Bench Members were in the Chamber and the hon. Gentleman held the fort for the Opposition by himself. He did it ably, but by himself. That says much about our earlier debate.
The Bill is worth while and some of the discussions in Committee have the shown the House at its best. Our electoral procedures have served us well in many ways but it is right to update procedures that were devised in the 19th century and ensure that they are suitable for the 21st century, while being careful not to lose the fairness and the integrity that characterises them. That spirit underpinned the working party's work on electoral procedures and our deliberations so far on the Bill. I hope that all hon. Members will support it and that it will receive a fair wind as it completes its passage and, in due course, becomes law.
5.22 pm

Mr. Evans: I shall be brief to allow other hon. Members an opportunity to speak. The Bill is an important, extensive constitutional measure, which transfers sweeping powers to the Home Secretary, not only to trial pilots, but, through clause 11, to change by statutory instrument the way in which we vote in several elections. We are therefore keen for the Bill to be properly scrutinised.
Last night was regrettable; yesterday was a bad day for representative democracy for two reasons. First, an important constitutional Bill was guillotined. Secondly, scheduling two important Bills for consideration after

Report and Third Reading was a grave error. Consensus is not an excuse for sloppy scrutiny, but a reason for hon. Members to examine a measure's minutiae more closely. We know that the Government want the Bill to be passed quickly, but let us get it right.
As the Minister said, the Government have accepted the thrust of some of our amendments. That is why we divided the Committee only twice. There is a great deal of consensus on the Bill, which aims to increase turnout at elections, increase registration and make voting easier. We support those aims, but we urge caution. In their hurry, the Government should not allow on to the statute book a Bill that has more holes than an Emmental cheese.
I trust that, when the Bill returns from another place, many of our amendments will have been accepted. Clause 9 could have important repercussions. The Government state that they do not want charities or businesses to be hit, but that will happen if the clauses remains unamended.
The credit implications for consumers may be wide. If that is so, the less-well-off will be hit. There is a problem that the head of the household could tick the relevant box on behalf of everyone on the electoral register in the household. If such people are excluded from the commercial register, their credit status may be affected.
Charities will also be adversely affected. The provision will not stop junk mail, but increase it, and charities will have to spend more money on mail than on good causes.
We are worried about the integrity of the vote when more people are eligible to register. We want more people to be able to vote and a relaxation of the rules on postal votes will help to ensure that. The days of the coach and horses have passed. We are in the 21st century and that should be reflected in the availability of postal votes.
The rolling register will be useful in easing registration, and I say again that it is a great shame that the by-election to be held in Ceredigion on 3 February will take place two weeks before the new register comes into effect. As many as 10,000 people in that constituency may be excluded from taking part in the by-election. I am sad that that has been done by the nationalists, and it is a matter of regret that many first-time voter students will be prevented from voting in that by-election.
We shall examine the Bill carefully when it comes back from the other place. The European elections, in which a 23 per cent. turnout was recorded, were the last real trial before a dramatic change in the voting system.
We cannot treat the electorate as an inconvenient and troublesome entity, a legal necessity to be dealt with before the Government can get on with their work. We must listen to the public. Their concerns go beyond the ease of voting. They are questioning the worth of voting. The Government must learn that making promises that cannot be kept, being arrogant once the election is over, and using spin instead of substance is not good enough.
5.26 pm

Mr. Barnes: In legislation that failed at earlier stages, I have brought three provisions in the Bill to the attention of the House.
One important development is the registration of homeless people. Up to now, although technically homeless people could get on registers, the fact that they did not have a place of residence made that extremely difficult. Now that has been enshrined in legislation,


although there has been much debate about whether the Bill provides sufficient protection. Nevertheless, the provision is very much in line with a measure that I introduced in the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill 1997, and I am pleased that it has been adopted.
Another measure that I have pursued on numerous occasions concerns access for disabled people to polling stations. Although some progress has been made, much still needs to be done. I was disappointed by the Minister's response when we debated the matter. It is possible that, in future, access to polling stations for disabled people will be developed further. Perhaps there will be legislation ensuring the civil rights of disabled people, which the disability movement has called for. A great deal of work has been done by Scope and others. The amendment that I tabled was taken from my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill 1994.
The Bill will be known chiefly for the establishment of the rolling register. That is important because it establishes a principle, even if there is some argument about the detail. Once the principle has been established that the register should take account of where people are at a particular time, further detail and improvements that new technology may make possible can be added later.
The first mention of a rolling register may have been in the context of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, which I introduced in 1993. The Bill failed to get through on a Friday because I could not carry the closure motion. It was won by 78 votes to nil because the then Government merely put in tellers.
Among the 78 hon. Members who supported the concept of rolling registers were four who, by that time or later, were leaders of the parliamentary Labour party—Neil Kinnock, the late John Smith, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and the present Prime Minister—and 12 members of the present Government, including my hon. Friend on the Front Bench tonight. Furthermore, the three Labour hopefuls for candidate for mayor of London were among the 78. There was support from other parties and the tellers were a member of the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrat spokesman on constitutional issues. The matter has a long history, and I am pleased that we have established those measures.
In Committee, I went through the detail of what needs to be done. We have just started out on achieving a modern rolling register—sometimes it stands still and sometimes it moves forward a bit—but the key point is that it needs to be established and we have got ourselves on that road. I have been involved in these matters in the House for 12 years. In February 1988, when the timetable motion for the Bill that introduced the poll tax was tabled, I said that there was a problem—I later realised that there were many other difficulties—because millions of people would be missing from the electoral register. About 1 million people were cleared off the register by the operation of the poll tax, but we have put some of the damage right and started to set in place the processes that will overcome it.
It is argued that constitutional matters should be debated on the Floor of the House and there is a retrospective argument that the poll tax, which was linked

with electoral registers, should have been dealt with in that way. The constitutional implications should have been dealt with at that time.
5.32 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief, as one or two other colleagues want to speak. As we said at the beginning of our proceedings, we support the Bill—at least where the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) proposed and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland considered. The House is now disposing, which shows the benefit of sticking with a measure over a long period to win the argument and win the day. I pay tribute to those who made submissions to the working party, colleagues from all parties who took part and the Under-Secretary, who chaired it.
The Bill was intended to be the part of the electoral reform process on which there could be agreement. To that extent, it is worth while and has been supported from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as from elsewhere. We do not agree on certain issues, however, and want to introduce certain measures, the most obvious of which is electoral reform—certainly in local government and perhaps later in national government—but we have accepted that the Bill is not the correct vehicle for that. We shall return to that argument.
On clause 9, I understand and share the Minister's point of view that people should have the right to prevent their name from going out for commercial purposes. That is the right principle. He made a helpful concession to the concerns of the charitable organisations and others, and I hope that the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will be reflected in the Bill's further progress in the other place. Although we regret that a guillotine motion was tabled, we accept that it is important to balance debates that go on for ever against the chance to test a measure. There was consensus, but we have to get the drafting right in case a constitutional Bill goes through on the nod because it is uncontroversial. I hope that the Minister's undertakings mean that such issues can be reconsidered after proper examination. My colleagues and I will be happy to look at them in advance to try to achieve maximum agreement in the other place and in the House.
The Bill's purposes are to make it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights and to do so in a more modern context. It achieves both. Pilot schemes for testing a proposition are a good idea and, if they work, should be carried out more widely. Achieving a more up-to-date register and providing access to it for the homeless, the mentally ill who have not been convicted and those in prison who have not been convicted are socially progressive changes. They should have happened before, but they are happening now. We welcome the Bill and hope that it is further improved in the other place and when it returns to the House.
5.35 pm

Mr. William Ross: The Home Secretary said earlier that he was pleased that the working party had been able to proceed on a basis of consensus, and that, with a single exception, all its recommendations had been accepted by all representatives, including those of the three political parties. However, none of those three parties included a member from Northern Ireland, the one part of the United


Kingdom where there is a clear understanding of the capacity for fraud in the electoral system. An opportunity was missed, and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind in the event of any such exercise in the future.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The electoral registration officer for Northern Ireland was, of course, a member of the working party.

Mr. Ross: He is an official, not a politician. I am talking about political parties.
I am deeply concerned about the possibility that postal voting will be made easy. When it was tried in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, or possibly the 1980s, it was a massive disaster: it led to an immense increase in the amount of fraud and, over the years, further measures had to be introduced successively in an attempt to combat the problem.
The question of identification has been mentioned. We in Northern Ireland have been driven, relentlessly, to a point at which we believe that the only possible means of identification is a common identity card tied to a unique number of members of each electorate, and featuring a photograph. Nothing else will do if we come up against carefully organised fraud in the electoral system.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said:
By modernising electoral procedures, we shall make it easier and more convenient for people to vote to exercise their rights in a democracy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 248.]
That is all well and good, but the right hon. Gentleman had already said:
I do not believe, and I am sure that no Member of the House believes, that the Bill will arrest and reverse the decline in turnout at all levels of election. Whatever the electoral procedures are, people will vote only if they are interested in the body being elected and feel that it is worth while to vote."—[Official Report, 30 November 1999; Vol. 340, c. 173.]
There seems to be a certain amount of muddled thinking. It appears that the Government do not believe that making the process easier will make it more likely that people will vote.
The Minister will recall a point that I made earlier about the qualifying date, as it is still called. He said that people would be able to register at any time, but that there would be an annual canvass—which constitutes a qualifying date, in a new guise. He told me that my proposed date of 15 September would mean that the canvass would have to take place during a holiday period.
The date of the canvass is a legal date. It is not possible to consider who is entitled to be on the register until that date, or beyond. People may die or move away right up to the date, whatever it may be. It would be possible to move the first register from 1 November rather than 1 December. That would involve a good deal of canvassing in the second half of September and the first half of October, when the weather would be better.
The intention is clearly to make the register as accurate as possible. That surely demands a common computer system, enabling us to marry all the different United Kingdom registers and check whether people are engaged in multiple voting.
I am not in favour of rolling registration, which I consider to be misconceived. There used to be a better system, enabling names to be added and registers to be

corrected. I mentioned earlier that a cost was involved. On 20 December, the Minister told me that it cost £40 million to register electors in England and Wales at approximately £1 per elector. The Secretary of State for Scotland told me that, in Scotland, the cost was about £4 million a year, just under £1 per elector. The cost of registering an elector in Northern Ireland was 44p.
This is the most comprehensive system in the United Kingdom. All premises are visited at least once a year. Perhaps the Minister will examine the position, and see why the cost is nearly two and a half times as much in the rest of the United Kingdom. The interesting thing is that it costs only 20p to correct a clerical error, but £1.27 for a postal vote.
I do not want to take up the House's time because we do not have long, but I should like to raise two other matters. If we go to computer voting, we must remember that hackers have always been able to break into any system. Will the Minister also remember that electoral law is now complex? It is scattered over quite a large number of pieces of legislation. A comprehensive consolidation is overdue. Will he please set that in train?
5.40 pm

Mr. Forth: I do not agree with the Bill. It is not necessary. The analysis, such as it is, has not demonstrated the need for it. I fail to see how, given that there are different turnouts at different elections, the Bill will make much difference.
Nor do I agree that the magical new process of a working party is an acceptable, or desirable, part of our processes here. The simple, repeated use of the word "consensus" does not validate a measure and should not eliminate proper legislative scrutiny.
For what it is worth, the only acceptable provision in the Bill is that on the rolling register. It is valid. If the Bill had consisted just of that, it would probably have taken us forward. The rest of it is partly unnecessary and partly extremely dangerous.
During scrutiny of the Bill, we have exposed its loopholes and weaknesses, which still exist. Despite Ministers' undertakings, I am not convinced that, when the pilot schemes are launched, they will take place in a secure environment that will make us happy with the way in which our elections are proceeded with. That is particularly the case with the ludicrous local connection provision, which strikes me—it has been mentioned many times—as an open door to fraud, manipulation and misuse of our electoral system.
All in all, this is an unhappy Bill. I hope that it has not set any precedents. I should like to think that it will not see the light of day, but, if it does, I hope that, at the very least, Ministers' undertakings will be put into place, probably in another place.
5.42 pm

Mr. Hancock: I am grateful for the 90 seconds that I have to praise part of the Bill.
Most people would welcome the opportunity for an improved register. Still, much needs to be done. We need to ensure that local authorities fund the improved register properly and that there are not the wide variations in accuracy from local authority to local authority that occur at the moment. The opportunity to have elections on


another day and allowing elections over the two days in a weekend will be a major breakthrough and might, in itself, be significant in increasing the number of people who take part in elections.
I agree with the points that were made by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) on access for disabled people. More needs to be done. There are still polling stations that are very difficult for people to get in and out of. I have been in some where the ballot box has been brought to the door because people could not get in. That cannot be right. The problem continues, so we still have much to do.
As we have stated, clause 11 is dangerous. I would have liked primary legislation to be used for a nationwide change, but I accept what the Minister said.
All in all, the Bill is a step in the right direction. We should support anything that encourages and allows more people to get the opportunity to vote, but the one thing that we should not forget is that any change in democracy is expensive. There will be a price. I hope that people do not back away from initiatives that are contained in the Bill because of the price that accompanies them. The point that was made by Northern Ireland colleagues is valid. For the life of me, I cannot understand why there should be such a wide disparity in what it costs to register someone. Perhaps we have to look at that matter.
It being four hours after the start of proceedings on the Allocation of Time motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Braithwaite Report

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
5.44 pm

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): It falls to me as the member of the House of Commons Commission who speaks for the Commission on the Floor of the House to introduce what is an important debate, where we will seek to review the management and service processes that are applicable to the House of Commons.
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for finding time for the debate. I know how difficult it is to find precious Floor time to discuss such matters. I am also grateful that we are able to have this debate on the Adjournment, allowing the broadest possible debate, so that the Commission may have the advantage of the broadest possible canvass of hon. Members' views.
I realise that we are subject to time constraints, and I hope that hon. Members who have taken the trouble to attend the debate will be prepared to wait and see it through to its logical conclusion.
Whatever else may be in doubt, it is difficult to take the view that this debate is premature. It is now 10 years since the House last examined these important matters, and, in this day and age of perpetual modernisation and exponential change, surely it is right for us to take stock of how we run the House of Commons for ourselves, for our constituents and for the wider British public.
It is also true that few hon. Members come to Parliament intent on making any great career out of stock control systems for the Refreshment Department. However, many hon. Members freely give their time to assist in the efficient management of the House, and we are very grateful to them for all the work that they do.
The House of Commons is a unique institution in more ways than one, and it has its own very real structural difficulties and environmental constraints. The fact that it works as well as it does is testimony to the dedication and commitment of the staff who serve us at all levels within the precincts of the Palace and the House of Commons.
I do not wish to detain the House, but should like to make one or two introductory remarks that set the context of the debate.
On 26 October 1998, on a recommendation from the Clerk of the House, the House of Commons Commission appointed Mr. Michael Braithwaite, formally a partner in Deloitte and Touche, to undertake the study. He was assisted, crucially, by Mr. Tony Newton—Lord Newton of Braintree, Leader of the House from 1992 to 1997—and, additionally, by three officers from different Departments of the House.
The study took eight months and cost about £77,000. The team reported to the Commission on 22 June 1999. The Commission immediately considered the report at no fewer than three meetings in the summer, and the report that we are now considering was published in full immediately thereafter.
The inquiry that the Braithwaite team undertook was much longer and much more detailed, ironically, than the Ibbs inquiry which it follows up. The team took a great deal of written evidence and interviewed no fewer than


105 people, some on two or more occasions, including current and former Ministers, Chairmen, heads of department, senior officials, and, importantly, 40 hon. Members, selected carefully to match the current composition of the House in age and length of service. The list of the interviewees is shown at annexes A and B in the report.
The team was also helpfully able to include questions of its own in the enormously detailed quality of service survey, which was conducted among all hon. Members, early last year, by Janet Levin Associates. All the results of that survey were made available to the inquiry team. In making international comparisons—which the team did—of parliamentary administration in other parts of the world, it had the help of no fewer than 14 overseas Parliaments.
It was an extremely thorough exercise, and hon. Members are most grateful to Michael Braithwaite and his team for their work, which was discharged timeously and with enthusiasm, great sensitivity and great skill. As I said, certainly the Commission is extremely grateful for the work that Mr. Braithwaite has done.
The Commission regard the report as a very professional piece of work: it is constructive and a sound basis on which we can take the debate forward. We have not, however, taken a formal view of the report's recommendations in advance of today's debate. However, after the report's publication, in the summer, we invited all hon. Members—and everyone else—to give us their views.
We received a very useful paper from the Finance and Services Committee, and one letter from a member of the public—good for him!—but nothing else from which to believe that the report has stirred up a great storm of controversy. Nevertheless, I stand to be corrected on that later in the debate.
As to the next steps, the Commission will meet again after today's debate to decide how to take matters forward. The Braithwaite team described the recommendations as a package rather than a menu, but I should like to reinforce very firmly that that does not mean that the report is a take it or leave it option. It simply means that any changes to the recommendations would need to be balanced elsewhere to ensure a consistent approach.
I shall not take the House through the report, because we do not have time, but it has a clear summary on pages 9 to 14, as well as a list of recommendations. However, I should like to set the report in context.
The Ibbs report 10 years ago considered the management of the House's services and the direction that was available from Members. It found profoundly unsatisfactory elements in the responsibilities and structures then in force and in the way operations were discharged. The so-called Ibbs settlement provided a clear way forward that separated the formulation of policy from the delivery of services and, crucially, gave the House responsibility for its accommodation and works. We tend to forget what a huge cultural change that was. The House had quickly to take responsibility for all its finances. That was a major challenge for the administration.
The Braithwaite team concluded that the Ibbs settlement sent the House in the right direction, but found that its implementation was patchy for a long time after the agreement. That is covered in parts 4 to 7 of the report.
More encouragingly, there has been faster progress recently. The report goes out of its way to pay tribute to the present Clerk of the House, his predecessor Sir Donald Limon and the Director of Finance and Administration for the major improvements over the past two or three years, which the team helpfully analysed at some length. The report also acknowledges the substantial contribution made by Members of Parliament as individuals and as Chairmen and members of Committees.

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): The Ibbs report was valuable and changed the way in which many matters were dealt with. One of its aspects was the communications problem. That is a serious problem, because many Members of Parliament know little, if anything, about the work of the Commission. That gap remains. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) answered only 14 questions throughout the previous Session, all of which were written questions. Is there a way of dealing with that criticism, which Ibbs made so many years ago?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has identified one of the Commission's areas of concern. The Braithwaite report makes some serious suggestions to address it. It is a long while since Members of Parliament had time to go through the written answers in Hansard to stay in touch with what is happening. There are some important suggestions about putting information on the intranet or, by agreement, carrying the basic recommendations and outcomes of some of the Committees, including the Commission, in the weekly Whip. We understand that there is a lack of communication. The Braithwaite report identifies the need for improvement and makes some positive suggestions, which I hope will be put into effect. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished and experienced parliamentarian, for drawing that point to the attention of the House.
The Braithwaite report updates Ibbs 10 years on, clarifying many changes that have been made since then. It highlights the important new role of information technology and the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting that we are all facing. Above all, it points out that expectations of accountability and transparency in the governance of public bodies are far greater than ever. We parliamentarians must ensure that we are beyond criticism in that respect. The report aims to give us the means to do that.
The report has several key elements. First, it stresses the importance of strategic planning, with suggestions on how to put the House of Commons Commission in a better position to discharge that function and with a framework within which the rest of House policy can be conducted.
Secondly, a much closer relationship is felt to be necessary between the Commission and a slightly smaller Finance and Services Committee, and better support for both these bodies is a key recommendation of the report. Thirdly, a clearer role for domestic Committees is recommended. It is recommended that we go back to the Ibbs scheme, giving the Committees a clearer role in policy formulation but not encouraging them to get involved in Executive and operational areas.
Fourthly, better information for Members—the point that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) mentioned—on the planning and delivery


of all services across the gamut of the House's work is referred to. Fifthly, reference is made to the improved operation of the Board of Management, and proper support for the Board of Management and for the Clerk of the House in trying to develop the corporate thinking and approach to the management of services in the House of Commons.
Sixthly, formal recognition of the Clerk's role is an essential element of the report, in terms of directing the House and reflecting the Clerk's actual role and the way in which he has done his work over the past three years, consolidating the primus inter pares role that he has discharged in the past. Finally, reference is made to the improvements in value for money and audit, including the crucial recommendation that we appoint some kind of audit committee to bring accountability up to date.
All these elements are crucial planks of the Braithwaite team's report. It is an incremental, not a radical approach. Braithwaite builds on the Ibbs settlement. It is not as radical as Ibbs but, as the report itself makes clear, it does not need to he because, over the past few years, the culture and approach to the management and delivery of services has changed out of all recognition.
In many cases, Braithwaite's recommendations are merely designed to buttress achievements already made or progress already under way. It is important to note that Braithwaite warns that the House's service will have, and is having, to cope with major challenges in its ordinary work—never mind management changes—through the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, devolution, modernisation, Committee changes, the implications of House of Lords reform, the impact of human rights legislation, accommodation moves, information technology developments, data protection and freedom of information.

Mr. David Lepper: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Madam Speaker, for not being here at the start of the debate.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned IT. The Braithwaite report recommends that the responsibilities of the Broadcasting Committee should be transferred to the Administration Committee. In view of the comments on the advances in IT, does the Commission consider that if the Broadcasting Committee should cease to exist, it would be more appropriate if its functions were transferred to the Information Committee, rather than the Administration Committee?

Mr. Kirkwood: I am well aware of that argument. If this is phase 1, that question is for phase 2. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that, when the appropriate moment comes to decide important issues such as that, proper consultation will be carried out. The arguments are compelling.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration about the recommended existence, post-Braithwaite, of the domestic Committees, given that, identified within the Ibbs and Braithwaite reports, there is still a problem in terms of confusion in line management, accountability and the transparency of the role of domestic Committees? Would the hon. Gentleman

and the Commission consider a more streamlined approach, with none of the domestic Committees, so that the responsibility would clearly lie with the newly outlined Central Management Committee?

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand what the hon. Lady says, and the report says that we should try to redefine and crystallise the role of domestic Committees to try to get them to be policy advisers, rather than interfering—if that is not a pejorative word—with operational functions and executive work, which should be the task of the professionals. The main thrust of the recommendations in the report is that we should try to refocus that work, as the Committees still have a valuable role to play.
The work of the domestic Committees, however, will have to be considered carefully during the rest of this Parliament. The view was expressed in the consultation process that we would be better off taking a radical approach to domestic Committees. I agree with the hon. Lady that the membership of the Committees has shown a worrying tendency to churn. There is no consistency, people have other priorities and corporate knowledge is not built up. That is worrying. The short-term proposal in the report is clear—we should keep the Committees but try to redefine their role. If the situation does not improve, we may need to reconsider in the not-too-distant future.
Progress has been made recently, and that view was strongly supported by the views of Members in a survey conducted by Janet Levin. Ten years ago, only 31 per cent. thought the House was a very or fairly good place to work, in terms of its accommodation. That has now risen to 70 per cent. Of those Members who said in the survey that they understood how the House services are managed, 79 per cent. said that they thought that they were well managed. We are a demanding group of customers and those figures represent a considerable achievement by the Clerk, the heads of Departments and the staff of the House.
We must not be complacent. The report also makes it clear that improved structures and methods are needed to ensure that progress does not falter, and that more is now expected of a public body, in terms of value for money and clear aims and accountability, than 10 years ago. It also makes it clear that the working environment will continue to change—for example, because of the impact of technology on information, communications and knowledge systems. As I said earlier, our expectations will also continue to increase, alongside those of our constituents.
The report seeks to equip the House with the means to meet some of those new challenges. After this debate, the Commission will be better placed to decide how to take matters forward. Should the report be implemented, in whole or in part, the process of implementation—which is contained in part 16 of the report—will be transparent, and Members and staff will be fully informed about it and will be able to comment on, and contribute to, it as it proceeds.
Doing nothing is not an option. The report's recommendations amount to a touch on the tiller, not a fundamental change of course, and I look forward to responding to the points raised in this debate. I commend the report to the House.
6.2 pm

Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the report. We should all be grateful to the staff of the House in every Department, because they go out of their way to please Members of Parliament in every way that they can—and I can say with confidence as chair of the parliamentary Labour party that it is not always easy to please Members of Parliament. The staff of the House work hard and try hard, and nothing that I am about to say should be taken as a criticism of them. Nor should it be taken too much as a criticism of the House of Commons Commission, because it has a difficult task, for two reasons. First, it is hard to achieve a structure of management that works for a place such as this and protects the rights and interests of Members. Secondly, and particularly important, it is difficult to engage the interest of Members in this issue until they complain about the structure.
Members do complain about the structure, and the most frequent complaint is that nobody understands how the management system of the House works. That complaint comes from old and new Members alike. It would be easy to claim that it was Members' fault for not making the effort to find out, for not speaking to members of the Commission or for not answering the surveys and questionnaires that are sent out from time to time. However, the more fundamental problem is that the system that we have adopted is not the right system. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that we need only a touch on the tiller. We need a more radical approach. I do not suggest that we sweep aside everything we have, because it has many good aspects, but it is not working and I shall give evidence for that statement later.
The problem is—the hon. Gentleman touched on it—there is no clear perception of who is in charge of what in the House. That is the key problem. The report wrestles with that problem. A number of the answers in annexe C show the difficulties encountered by the House and the Commission. That annexe continually emphasises the difficulty of communicating with hon. Members, and how hard it is to get an impression of how well the House is run.
The report compares the task of managing the House to trying to manage accommodation for 659 small companies. I understand that analogy, but consider it mistaken, as it leads one in the wrong direction. It gives the impression that Members of Parliament might be considered as 659 market stalls under a dome, and that the task of the management of the House is to ensure that the roof does not leak.
I prefer to think of the House as accommodating 659 individuals—or several thousand individuals, given our capacity to have a split-personality mode—with different needs at different times. The management of the House provides a common structure through which all our needs—whether they involve catering, cleaning, repair works, or security, for example—can be met.
The problem is that the House retains a system of management that resembles an old-style local authority before the introduction of chief executives. There are a number of Domestic Committees that want to, and try to, do their jobs well, without getting too involved, as the

hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire noted. However, given their structure, it is almost inevitable that they do get too involved.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that a prime example of the policy and management confusion that he has described is the decision by the Select Committee on Administration that 259 requests for on-site child care facilities amounted to insufficient demand?

Mr. Soley: I was not aware of that decision. As an aside, I can say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that it is a good idea to give responsibility for the media to the Administration Committee, as the report states that there should be a media department in the chief Clerk's office—the office of the Clerk of the House. That would be another example of duplication of effort.
The old local authorities worked quite well in their day, but the more complex decisions get, and the more intense the demands on management become, the more likely it is that that model will break down. Above all, the need for a central, focal point where people can complain becomes increasingly necessary. That is vital: hon. Members from all parties feel that there exists no such central point to which they can resort for help.

Ms Joan Walley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to have one person who has complete and utter responsibility for all the arrangements in the House? Does he also agree that the difficulty is compounded by the fact that hon. Members also have constituencies elsewhere in the country? Many of us have to run two offices simultaneously, yet in the past the administrative arrangements in the House have not acknowledged how important that is for our work.

Mr. Soley: I am sure that hon. Members must retain overall political control of the management of the House. We must not lose that power, and I shall suggest how that might be achieved in due course.
I felt that it could not be accidental that so many hon. Members should ask me—especially since I have been chairman of the parliamentary Labour party—about whom to contact about problems in the House. Over the past day or two, I have asked more than 40 hon. Members from all parties to tell me whom they would turn to if they had a problem with the management of the House.
Of the hon. Members that I approached, 25 replied that they would contact the Serjeant at Arms. Another 15 came into the "don't know" category. They were the closest runners up, but the trend was all in their favour and I suspect that they would have ended up leading the field if I had asked the same question of more Members. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be pleased to know that she led the field among the also-rans. She had four nominations. You, Madam Speaker, had two. I, as chair of the parliamentary Labour party, had three. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire had one—that was because I asked a Liberal Democrat Member who knew that the hon. Gentleman was on the Commission. The regional Whip and the Chief Whip were also mentioned.
The most important thing about the question was that, with one exception, nobody gave the right answer, given what the report recommends and says is happening


already. More important, with the exception of the person who mentioned the regional Whip, everybody hesitated, paused and struggled to work out the answer. They did not say "The Serjeant at Arms" or even "I don't know" immediately; they would pause first.
I was reminded by the report that the chief Clerk has been the chief executive for the past two or three years. I said to some people—I did not ask everyone—"If you were in any other organisation, whether it was public, private, a local authority or a hospital, whom would you contact?" Without hesitation, they answered, "the chief executive." But when I asked just a few whether they knew that there had been a chief executive here for two or three years, I received replies like, "You must be joking," and "I don't believe you." Rather more worryingly—perhaps because I misphrased the question and asked someone in a slightly conspiratorial manner, "Did you know the chief Clerk is really the chief executive?"—the reply was, "You look tired. Why don't you take a break?" I am all for taking a break; I think that I need one at times in this game.
The essence is that no one knew whom to write to. Yet the report clearly shows that the person to write to is the chief Clerk. Paragraph 9 of the summary states:
The Clerk of the House was seen by Ibbs as the chief executive; has assumed this role to a much greater extent over the last two to three years".
The report then compliments him on improving the service. I agree—I think that he does a very good job. The report continues:
The Clerk needs better support; there should be a small but high-powered Office of the Clerk, which should also co-ordinate the decision-making process and provide support for the Commission, the Finance and Services Committee and the Board of Management.
In all other structures, such a person is treated as the chief executive. Someone who knows to write to the head of the catering department will obviously do so. A matter about the service in a dining room, for example, might be addressed to the manager of the catering department or even to the Catering Committee, but many questions are not so clear cut.
A hospital is in many ways similar to this place—because we have to respect the sensitivities of the staff, both doctors and management, but when we have doubts, we do not ask who is head of the oncology department, or who is in charge of the midwives—we write to the chief executive, who then takes the matter up.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am having difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's analogy, because he is in danger of loading the wrong kind of function on to the person with the senior position on the management board. We often write to chief executives of organisations, but we know very well that consumer relations departments draft their replies for them. We hope that chief executives of organisations are looking to the management priority questions in the longer term, not dealing with every complaint about every department.

Mr. Soley: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but he is not disagreeing with me. I do not expect the chief executive to deal with such matters. I am saying that,

when people are unsure who to contact, they contact the chief executive who makes sure that the matter is dealt with by the relevant person in the managerial hierarchy. It is not a question of customer relations. In hospitals, local authorities and big companies, customer relations departments deal only with a certain type of question. If we ask, as we often do, about problems that our constituents have, such as leaky roofs, we write to the director of housing if we know who that is. If not, we write to the chief executive, who then passes the letter on to the relevant manager.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter of accountability, and not just of responsiveness and the ease with which Members may correspond with a single figure who can field any inquiry? We need to know who is accountable for running this place.

Mr. Soley: I agree, and I am troubled to feel that we may take a wrong turning. There is a lot of repressed demand among Members for knowing how the place works. At present, they—particularly new Members—ask someone such as myself, as chairman of the PLP, or the Leader of the House or their Whip. However, many of the people of whom I asked questions had 15 years or more of service, and they were among the "don't-knows". We are not getting the message across about the management structure. We need a system that people can see and understand so that they may refer to a central point if they are not sure of where in the management structure they should go with a query.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I hope not to make a speech because, as a member of the Commission, I am here to listen to Members. My hon. Friend and I have previously discussed my reservations about his approach, but I entirely agree, as does the Braithwaite report, that our arrangements are not sufficiently well known. That problem needs to be addressed, and one reason for proposing a proper office for the Clerk is the attempt to find a means of doing so.
I share the view of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that we may be in danger of taking the wrong route. This is a special, if rather peculiar, place. My hon. Friend will observe that annexe G of the Braithwaite report draws attention to the fact that the Canadian Parliament tried a divided system but has brought it all back together. In addition, the Swedes experimented with a divided system, but have brought it back together. My anxiety is that only one person will be in charge. With the utmost respect to the Clerk's Department, there are occasions on which Members are not entirely sure that the Clerks appreciate our problems as much as we would wish. If we bring in an outside professional, we shall see the same problem in spades.

Mr. Soley: I understand my right hon. Friend's view, which we have discussed. I suspect that our differences are not too great because I certainly do not believe that all that we do now is wrong or that the direction in which we are going is entirely wrong. However, the evidence of my questions to Members has demonstrated that we are failing almost entirely to get across the message about how the place is managed. If my right hon. Friend or the


hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire conduct the same exercise, they will be astonished by the comments that they hear and will quickly identify deep frustration about how the place is managed and lack of awareness of how to intervene.
I am aware that the report considered experience overseas, and it would be rash to ignore that experience by going our own way. I am cautious about the approach that we should take. It is important that someone at Member of Parliament level—an individual or a Committee—should have overall charge, which is why the Commission is vital. However, as I said in my evidence to the review—I cannot say that my views are shared by the whole parliamentary Labour party, but can say categorically that there is strong dissatisfaction with the management structure—although I should prefer a system that recognises the special nature of this place, the same arguments were used in hospitals before chief executives were brought in. It was said that hospitals should not have chief executives because doctors should make clinical judgments. In this place, people say, "You can't have a chief executive because we are politicians and we have to relate to our constituents."
However, the two are not incompatible. There could be a chief executive who deals with straightforward general control of management and who is accountable—whether for leaky roof, the overall running of the catering department and so on. On the other side, there would be the Clerks doing the things that they do so well: the servicing of Members' work—the all-important core work of the House, in the Chamber, in Committees and so on. We should still need some domestic Committees, although we are all agreed—including the Braithwaite team—that there are too many of them. They are too varied and sometimes it is unclear whether they are making policy or solving day-to-day problems.
If we set up the system that I described, we would have a senior parliamentarian—who is, at present, rightly you, Madam Speaker—as Chair of the Commission. The members of the Commission would be crucial to the system. I do not propose that as a perfect model, but it would be a way of bringing together the roles of a chief executive and the Clerks.
We are in danger of taking a wrong turning in this matter. Paragraph 9 would inevitably drive us towards—as it indeed confirms—a much more powerful Clerk's Department, which would be responsible for the management. However we dress it up, that would be true. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and other members of the Commission should think about that. If people ask me whom they should contact and it is not immediately obvious, I tell them to write to the chief Clerk. If that becomes the thing to do—especially if there is, as I suspect, some repressed demand—the chief Clerk will have to do much more such chief executive work.
Paragraph 9 points out that the Clerk's Department will have to be expanded—so it will. If we all took the approach that I described, the chief Clerk would quickly demand those extra resources that the report states are necessary. In a year or two, the chief Clerk would have so much to do to ensure the proper management of the House and to check—as required under paragraph 9—that other Departments are doing their job properly that he would have too little time to give to the all-important work of the Clerk's Department, not the least of which is reading up, and constantly keeping

on top of, parliamentary procedure. That work is incredibly demanding. We should not be asking the chief Clerk to undertake both forms of work.
In a few years' time, we shall have come full circle. The chief Clerk will ask for a deputy to deal with the managerial side. We might as well call that person a chief executive. That is why I say that there is a danger. It is as though the report has set up, almost by accident, the model that I described; matters will drift in that direction, if the chief Clerk is treated as a chief executive as the report recommends.
The debate is extremely important. I should like to think that Members will read it avidly in Hansard tomorrow and, at last, get involved in understanding the management system. I do not think that that will happen, but the consequences of recommendation 9 are that, over time, the chief Clerk will increasingly become the chief executive of the House. He will end up with a double role—trying to do his job as chief Clerk and as manager of the managers.
Sooner or later, we shall have to separate those tasks—just as all other modern organisations, private or public, have had to do. The Commission seems to be taking that route without quite realising it. That is how we shall end up. I would rather that we structured the matter so that we knew that we were taking that course and did not drift into it. The last thing I want to do is to produce such a work load for the Clerk's Department that the Clerks are unable to give time, attention and detail to their Committee and Floor of the House work. If they cannot do that work well, it will do enormous damage to this place.
6.25 pm

Mr. Roger Gale: I have an interest as one of the three parliamentary non-remunerated directors of Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Ltd. I have also had the privilege, during the enforced absence of the Chairman of the Broadcasting Committee, to act as Chairman of that Committee.
I shall move straight into part of the phase 2 debate that was referred to earlier. I shall comment briefly on Braithwaite's recommendation for the Broadcasting Committee and I shall seek to emphasise the need for a form of scrutiny of parliamentary broadcasting by a Committee. In paragraphs 15.36 and 15.37, Braithwaite picks up the Ibbs report's recommendation that "within a few years" the Broadcasting Committee should be abolished and its remit given to the Administration Committee.
Since the original recommendation was made in 1990, the broadcasting of the House has become infinitely more complex, as have all the communications systems of the House. The Broadcasting Committee is at present engaged in producing a report on the future of parliamentary broadcasting in all its forms. Inevitably—this will not surprise the House—much of that future is likely to be online if we are to give the public access to the information, visually and in sound form, from this place, which we want to reach far more people than it does at present.
I do not have a particular brief to defend the Broadcasting Committee, and I concur with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) to the extent that there is a case for placing its remit with the Information Committee,


if that Committee's remit is to be broadened to embrace all parliamentary information. I cannot see any logic now in accepting the Ibbs recommendation to hand over the remit to the Administration Committee because the matters are too complex to be brought under that umbrella.
The point—is the only point that I want to make—is that in the course of the Broadcasting Committee's scrutiny of parliamentary broadcasting, we have all become aware of the complexities of televising the Houses of Parliament and then seeking to ensure that the information that is available is produced in a form that can be accessed by many people. At the moment, the House is failing in that because very few people actually have access, although, in theory, everybody does.
We have become aware also of the complexities of producing the signals, producing and editing the material, the nature of the restrictions on shots that are used in the House and a wealth of other considerations and arguments that do not at the moment fit neatly into the remit of any other Committee.
When the Commission considers that matter, I hope that it will take further advice from all members of the Broadcasting Committee, but that, whatever else it does, it ensures that the House of Commons retains full and proper scrutiny of the production and broadcasting of the work of the House, not just in the Chamber, but in Standing Committees, Select Committees and now in Westminster Hall.
6.28 pm

Ms Oona King: I wanted to speak in this debate mainly because I come into the "don't know" category that was mentioned earlier. As a new Member of Parliament, I have found it difficult to understand how the House works. Our greatest challenge is to maintain the unique features of the House while resourcing a modern democracy. I shall seek to constrain my remarks, so I shall miss out huge chunks of my prepared speech because I know that many hon. Members want to contribute.
The essential problem is highlighted in the Braithwaite report, which says:
The House has no mission statement; Members of Parliament have no job description.
Despite that, the House is a workplace and, contrary to common opinion, MPs have an immense amount of work, so those contradictory statements shed some light on the complexity of the task.
As well as being complex, the resourcing of a Parliament impacts on the quality of democracy that emerges. That is why I wish to speak. I do not want to moan just about the fact that it is the year 2000 and I still cannot get a cappuccino in the canteen.

Mr. Brian White: That is shocking.

Ms King: It is shocking sometimes.
I want to consider what it is reasonable for MPs to expect and how the failure to meet those expectations can lessen our ability to serve our constituents. I apologise for not being an expert on the running of the House; I do not

know who is responsible for what. All I know is that I believe that the system must change. I am an expert on that. As the Braithwaite report says:
Each Member of Parliament is an expert on what he or she wants from the system, and what the system should provide.
I readily admit that, from a managerial point of view, having a client group of 659 stroppy politicians who earn a living from shooting their mouths off must be an unsavoury nightmare. Nevertheless, as a new MP. I wish to take this opportunity to say what I want from the system.
In general terms, I want an environment in which both parliamentary scrutiny and individual constituency inquiries—the two halves of our job—can be pursued, and I want an environment that saves me time. The environment in the House is not conducive to time saving. MPs are very rich in many respects, but we are paupers in terms of time. We do not have any.
In specific terms, I want to make the best use of technology. That has been an absolute and diabolical failure in the House. I have an office that is still not cabled and I find that ludicrous. If I worked in any other environment or for a company that thought of itself at the leading edge, I would have that facility. I understand that there may be good reasons for having offices that are not cabled, but surely, in the 21st century, the problems need to be overcome. Our constituents suffer as a result.
Secondly, I want to have the moderate conveniences that most of the working population take for granted. Again, a decent cup of coffee comes to mind. Although that is a trivial and irrelevant point at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, it can become a pressing problem at 3 o'clock in the morning when it is our job to scrutinise important Government Bills in a Standing Committee. Although it is always useful for MPs to be awake while they scrutinise Government legislation, I freely admit that the point that I have just made is not the most important one.
Therefore, I shall turn to the most important point. The most important thing that I want from the system is that it does not drive me out of my job as a Member of Parliament because I wish to balance my work and family life. In the past, women often found that increasingly difficult. Women do not often have a wife—a prerequisite for these jobs.
Men have similar problems, too. Any decent man, I am sure, wishes to spend time with his family. However, the work-life balance is one that every workplace and every employer must tackle. The Braithwaite report says:
the House has to square the circle: there must be strategic planning, effective management and financial control, but in an environment which is sensitive to the needs of Members and of the House as a whole.
Until recently the "needs of Members" meant the needs of men. It is astonishing that we still do not have a creche. I have not investigated the matter recently, but do we still have a shooting gallery? That was the position when I arrived in the House, but I do not know whether it still is.
The management of the House has a responsibility to make itself receptive to elected representatives that have either family responsibilities or simply the desire to have a life. [Interruption.] Radical, is it not? Such a conducive environment relates to a myriad of different facilities—everything from child care to toilet and sleeping facilities. I was at the French Parliament recently. It has rooms that French Deputies can book at the beginning of an all-night


session. [Interruption.] I shall not comment on Conservative Members' remarks on the sleeping habits of foreign Members of Parliament.
Working hours, working days, holidays and information technology facilities are all part of a conducive environment. Some are considered by Braithwaite, but others are not. The report considers them with its managerial scope, but they are affected by a political scope, too
I shall omit everything else that I wanted to say about information technology. I acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Communications Directorate and that great strides have been made. However, until we deal with the office cost allowance, we shall never have an effective IT department that can meet our needs.
As for the future, it is obvious that the trend is greater research work and more members of staff needing more support. Politicians must accept that they will have to give up their territorial claim over the office cost allowance if they want the House, in managerial terms, to be able to deliver the quality of IT support that we need.
We must embrace the corporate strategy and promote a corporate identity. There are many factors that militate against that, not least 659 Members of Parliament. As I have said, I am not an expert on who controls these matters; I do not have time to be. I represent 120,000 people, some of whom are among the poorest in the country. All of them live in a borough that has been recently ranked No. 1 in the deprivation index. It is my responsibility to be an expert on the solutions that make their lives easier. It is someone else's responsibility to be an expert on the solutions that make my life easier.
I do not know who these magical people are. But wherever they are in their different Committees and Departments, and whatever their different roles, most of them who have influence will hear the debate or read these words. Those of them with a determination to find solutions to service a modern democracy will overcome the disparate nature of the House of Commons decision-making procedure. They will overcome the temptation to say that it is somebody else's responsibility—it usually is—and they will also overcome the temptation to shore up the status quo. They will do all of these things so that the House can serve all its parliamentarians, even those—dare I say it—who have a life outside Parliament. Do not underestimate the importance of the task. It represents the difference between representative democracy being a slogan or a reality.
6.37 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith: I agree with much that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, but if she leaves it to unknown people on Committees to achieve the things that she wants, they will never happen. I bear the scars from the Administration Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee during my 19 years as a member of the House of Commons Commission, I can tell the hon. Lady privately why we do not have a creche and precisely who was responsible for ensuring that we did not have one. We are talking of responsibilities that should not be left to those who lack radical passion.
My having served on the Commission for so long is probably a disqualification from taking part in the debate. I shall exculpate myself by saying that my years of service

did not make me feel that we should leave everything as it is. Indeed, they were years that were marked by a constant battle to do what was said to be impossible.
It was said that it was impossible for the House to take control of the buildings in which we meet and that that was a responsibility that the Government would never relinquish. When Geoffrey Howe was Leader of the House, he decided that he wanted to appoint Sir Robin Ibbs, and it was a good idea to do so. He asked whether we would support the appointment and I said, "Only on condition that we can have the future of the buildings addressed in the Ibbs report." At that stage, the House took control of its own buildings, taking a step that it had been told it could not make.
We were told that it would be impossible for the House to introduce its own vote covering its own expenses. None the less, we do so. We have done it ever since the Ibbs report. Everything that we suggest in this area tends to be impossible until it is demonstrated that it can be done.
The Braithwaite report refers to the fact that it took six months to set up the Finance and Services Committee. Why was that? The report does not reveal the reason. In fact, it was because the Government of the day insisted that the then Leader of the House had to chair the Committee. Chairmanship could not be released into the hands of Back-Bench Members. We put up a fight and said, "No, we are not going ahead unless it is done as Ibbs said, with a Back-Bench Member doing that job." That battle was eventually won.
It is now suggested that the Member who chairs the Finance and Services Committee should be paid a salary. I remember saying at the time, "You have either to pay this person a salary or give him the best room in the building, otherwise you will never get anyone to take on the job." To be done properly, it requires a great deal of time and attention. It needs to be a priority activity. I see the post as a more important one than it has been up to now. It has not developed to the extent that Ibbs said that it should.
I see also the holder of the post can be of considerable assistance to you, Madam Speaker. Members do not always realise what a submerged iceberg of work surrounds the Speaker's role in the management of the House and in the House of Commons Commission. The Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee can be of invaluable assistance.
It is extraordinary that the minutes of domestic Committees were denied to the Braithwaite inquiry. It revealed some of the problems that we experience in relating the Commission's work to the domestic Committees. I am not surprised that the domestic Committees found it difficult to adjust to the advisory role that Ibbs recommended, and the massive turnover of Members cannot have helped. However, those involved in selecting people for ministerial posts must have regard to the need for a corpus of experienced Members on a Committee. The Commission has such a corpus, but the domestic Committees, like the Select Committee on Social Security, which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) chairs, do not. There has almost been a total turnover of members of that Select Committee since the general election. It is impossible to run an efficient system in that way.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) pressed the case for a separate chief executive. The hon. Gentleman was the reincarnation of our former colleague John Garrett, who pressed that case for many years. I have much sympathy with him. Until recently, those who reached the post of chief executive by becoming Clerk of the House had been recruited and trained for a different role. In recent years, it has been acknowledged that those who become Clerk of the House will become chief executive. That has been reflected in the work of recent Clerks of the House.
It is not the most logical arrangement, but the alternatives do not convince me. To put it in basic terms, which the report expresses in more flowery language, why appoint two people to grade 1 jobs when one person can do both jobs? The Clerk of the House has to be of senior status because he has to defend the rights of the House against the Executive. That job cannot be downgraded. The chief executive needs to have senior status, too. I am inclined to keep the current system as long as we can make it work.
When we examine political responsibility, perhaps we should consider the bureau and quaestor systems to which the report refers. Earlier this week, I was in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, and I noted that it had moved towards such a system—it has a formalised bureau system. Some hon. Members claim that the Speaker should not play such a demanding role in the executive management of the House, but the Scottish Parliament has established such an arrangement. My colleague, Lord Steel, who is the Presiding Officer, retains the role of Chairman of the Bureau and is recognised by all Members of the Scottish Parliament as the apex of the structure that manages the Parliament's functions. That seems to work.
Hon. Members would probably find the allocation of more individual responsibility for different activities, such as that of the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee, easier to tackle. We could make changes to ensure that the system provides the services that hon. Members need. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made wider suggestions, which were outside the remit of the report, for changes to the way in which we manage time. However, if we are to make some of the fundamental changes that the House needs, we would have to persuade the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and his one or two colleagues who occupied the House's time for most of the earlier part of this afternoon that there are more important things in life than taking up time.
The call upon the House's services will remain excessive until we manage time more effectively. That was outside the remit of the report, the purpose of which was to try to develop a sensible, properly accountable management structure for those who serve the House. The report is on the right lines.
6.44 pm

Mr. Brian White: Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a systems analyst. Reading the Braithwaite report was therefore interesting. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made most of the points that I intended to make, so I shall be brief. I endorse all her

comments, especially those on the creche and the office allowance, which needs reform. The current allowance leads to poor research support for Members, because of the turnover and constraints.
It is crucial that our constituency offices are recognised. The Commission must take that on board, especially in relation to the IT recommendations in the report. They need to do that.
The suggestions for dealing with information technology do not take into account the speed of change. I hope that the Commission will take that on board, particularly in relation to training, support for Members and support for staff who provide support for Members.
With regard to value for money audits, at the time of the Ibbs report, that was the convention in government. Local authorities were urged to undertake value for money studies. We have since moved on to a system of best value, and the Commission should consider best value as the way forward, rather than value for money audits.
6.45 pm

Mr. Eric Forth: What depressed me when I first read the report was the statement in paragraph 23 that
the status quo is not an option. The process of change needs support or it may falter".
The report would say that, would it not? If we ask management consultants to produce a report, they must refer to the inevitability of change because that is how they earn their living. In the context of the ghastly modernisation fetish that the House is undergoing, a report must almost inevitability refer to the benefits of change.
In the early days of the European Community, as it then was, the analogy of a bicycle was always used. We were told that, as in the case of riding a bicycle, if it did not keep moving forward, it would fall over. That was presented as the reason for the need constantly to drive forward and constantly to change, which was usually dressed up with words such as "progress", "improvement" or "modernisation".

Ms Oona King: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that change cannot help but come when, for example, the number of women Members has gone from one in 10 to one in six? Does he recognise that women have certain needs, such as child care facilities?

Mr. Forth: No. I am one of those people who is gender blind. I want neither more nor fewer women Members. The electorate decides how many there are, and the institution goes on, I hope, relatively unchanged and unaffected. I do not regard that as an issue.
Funnily enough, I did agree with one thing that the hon. Lady said. She said that one of the things that we suffer from—this may be one of the key problems of the House—is the lack of a mission statement. I use that ghastly phrase because it sums up the position reasonably well.
As I see it, the real difficulty with the way in which we in the House work is that it is not clear whether our objective is to deliver a service to the taxpayer at least cost, or whether it is to spend as much money as possible on ourselves because we are basically not accountable.
I know of little or no transparency. If, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I went round and asked the first 50 hon. Members whom I bumped into how much it cost to run this place on an annual basis, I doubt whether any would guess within £100 million a year, yet our main responsibility is supposed to be accountability to the taxpayer for what is spent at large in government. I do not detect that sense of responsibility or accountability among us as a body for what we spend on ourselves or allow, demand or encourage to be spent on us.
The report does not tackle a fundamental problem—how we see our responsibilities to the taxpayer being discharged in the very conduct of our business. However splendidly the Commission may work, I am not convinced—because I do not know enough about how it works—that that is in the forefront of its mind when it goes about the strategic planning that may or may not happen. Of that, I have some doubt as well. I suspect that that is where the difficulties arise.
When I turned to page 131 with a sense of excitement and looked for sharp-edged, hard-hitting, punchy recommendations, I felt somewhat let down. Frankly, it is not that impressive. There are many words and many recommendations, but I doubt whether many will be helpful. For example, we read:
The Commission should have a high-level version of the Board of Management monthly report".
I do not know what that means. It may mean something to the people who wrote it, and I hope that it means something to the people at whom it is directed.
To state that the Finance and Services Committee
"should monitor progress towards performance targets"
is hardly profound and does not carry us much further forward. I was not immediately impressed by what I read, but hope that the recipients of the report find it more inspiring and useful than I did.
May I make a radical suggestion? Here, I belie my suspicion of change. Given that a lot of what has been said during this brief but valuable debate revolves around the fact that Members themselves are unaware of the domestic Committees and the Commission, they almost certainly do not know who sits on those Committee, what their objectives are or what they do, unless they have seen all that rising before their horrified eyes in the form of Portcullis House—£250 million, thanks very much. Apart from that, there is not much awareness among Members of what those shadowy bodies do.
That takes us to transparency and accountability, which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow touched on. My suggestion is this: instead of appointing those Committees and the Commission in such a mysterious way, which is how much of what happens in the House works, why not elect them? Members should stand for election to the Accommodation and Works Committee, the Catering Committee and the Finance and Services Committee and issue programmes of aspirations. They could say to their colleagues, "I would like to sell off Portcullis House and give the proceeds back to the taxpayer," or, "I should like caviar to be available in the Tea Room." That would encourage accountability and a sense of purpose in the process. To answer the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush, we would know whom to talk to because we would have

voted for them. There would be a direct connection between Members and those who purport to represent them and act on their behalf.
I suspect that a reason why the system does not work, as so many colleagues have said so eloquently, is that there is no connection between us—the humble punters—and those important people who do that vital work on our behalf. I make my suggestion to those who will mull over the debate and then carry us forward in the exciting, dynamic way referred to by the report. Perhaps we should bring a bit of democracy and accountability to the House of Commons. What a radical thought. We have spent some productive time today talking about the electoral process between us and our voters, of which we are all very proud and with which we are very familiar. Let us transfer that same process to the House and have a properly transparent and accountable system with electoral legitimacy. That would shake things up pretty well.
6.52 pm

Mr. Andrew Miller: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is becoming a dangerous radical, which will obviously result in my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) being elected to take charge of the coffee-making facilities. I say to her that we should put on record our thanks to the staff of Hansard, the Parliamentary Communications Directorate, the Library and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms, who have radically transformed information technology in the House over the past few years.
A few months ago, I had the privilege of attending a conference in Paris with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). We discussed the development of IT in Parliaments with colleagues from across Europe and I am pleased to report that a good number of them asked how we were making radical steps forward such as ensuring that Hansard is freely available on the web to every citizen. We should develop initiatives quickly and improve facilities in such ways. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we need to drive forward the cabling programme, but she should reflect on the fact that we are dealing with a grade 1 historic building that includes asbestos used in post-war development. Furthermore, there are 659 Members who will not be too keen to move out of their offices when that work needs to be done.
Having said that, I want to put down a few markers to the Commission in respect of the IT work. Strategic planning has to be at the core of such activity and we have to make sure that Departments and Members understand that their IT preferences cannot drive that strategy. We must identify the desirable outcomes, and then ensure that the information technology strategy accords with them. I am afraid that, in part, we have failed to do that in past years. We have made significant progress in this Parliament and the last, but the strategy still needs to be sharpened.
For once, I entirely agree with what was said by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who is not present now. I believe that there is a case for strengthening the base of the Information Committee, and encompassing the functions of broadcasting. That will require careful thinking in regard to the Commission's role.
May I correct something that was said by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Not all Committees refused the documentation to which he referred; in fact, I do not believe that the Information Committee was asked for the minutes. It would certainly have made sense to make them available, because it would have underlined the existence of a strategy.
We need to encompass the whole process of changed management throughout services in the House. However, the House must realise that, if we are to deliver the change demanded by my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), we must understand the financial implications. That was one of the issues that arose in Paris. Parliaments must realise that the modernisation of their ability to communicate with the outside world will cost money. We must ensure that the public, as well as us, have confidence in the services that we have introduced.
6.57 pm

Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I believe that the House should adopt the Braithwaite report, and recommend the Commission to do so. We should implement the report as soon as possible, and we should go beyond it.
There are always arguments against change and reform, some of which we have had this evening. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was engaged in the endless search for perfection, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in, perhaps, a deliberate attempt to sabotage effectiveness. There is the loss of ancient privileges and perks; and, of course, there is the fear of the unknown. For the past 20 years, the House has swept aside such arguments when they have been advanced by local government, the national health service, the public utilities, companies and financial institutions. We would have none of that nonsense, and we should have none of it now. The fact is that we desperately need a strategic and coherent view of what is going on behind the scenes, and we have not got it.
There are many flaws and problems, most of which were identified in the Ibbs report 10 years ago. At that time, "unco-ordinated", "unaccountable" and just about every other adjective expressing derision were heaped on the running of the system. The Braithwaite report is full of diplomatic language; it wraps things up a little; but it must be said in all honesty that the shambles of 10 years ago has simply become the incomplete shambles that we have now.
There is plenty of evidence in the report to back that up. According to pages 151 and 152,
Commission does not yet provide strategic direction
and
Domestic Committees continue to seek executive roles".
It goes on for page after page. It states that its recommendation for the publication of Commission minutes has not been implemented, and that there is no strategic direction. There are dozens of examples, which we all have. My favourite concerns the Annunciator and the work of the live channel: the wording is still in upper case, because, we are told, it is impossible to put lower-case print on to the screen. Goodness knows why that is so.
There are overlapping Committees. There are confused priorities. There is no one in charge. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew our attention to some radical suggestions, but he failed to draw attention to the fact that the Commission should set its calendar of meetings in a—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Representation of the People Bill (Allocation of Time) and the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]
7.2 pm

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Just a few more Members wish to speak. It is a House of Commons matter, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) would agree. I want to hear those Members out. It is right that we should.

Mr. Stunell: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: But I hope that Members will not take up too much of our time.

Mr. Stunell: I do not intend to. I appreciate your protection from my colleague, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
We have a string of recommendations, which my hon. Friend described as the first phase, or the first tier of decisions. We should endorse that first tier and encourage him and the Commission to get on with the second tier as quickly as possible.
In all conscience, the House, having turned on every other public body and institution in the country and reformed it over the past 20 years, should be ashamed of its failure to do the same with its own institutions. We want something that is enabling, invigorating and effective, not obstructive, slow moving and ineffective. Therefore, I urge the House and the Commission to implement and to follow up on the Braithwaite report as quickly as possible.
7.1 pm

Sir George Young: As a fellow Commissioner, Madam Speaker, I propose to say little, but I know that our deliberations will have been illuminated by the debate.
I, too, compliment Michael Braithwaite and his team on the report. It required an unusual combination of skills: insight into the life of Members and the culture of Parliament; and an understanding of modern business management structures. It is a readable document, which has inspired an interesting "Second Reading" debate in the Commission.
I make six quick points. First, devising a management system for the complex business that is the House would be a major challenge in itself, but a management system that incorporates Members at the right place, with all the pressures on our time and sensitivities, requires genius. The difficulty that confronted both Ibbs and Braithwaite was how to insert into a conventional corporate management structure an essentially unconventional non-corporate person—namely, a Member of Parliament, whose predominant interests and commitments lie elsewhere.
Secondly, the report asserts that it is all or nothing. Paragraph 25 states:
Our recommendations are an integrated package rather than a list of options.
There is a tendency for many reports to say that nowadays. I do not think that that holds true. The report contains many stand-alone recommendations, including cross-posting staff in the House from one Department to another and a foundation period for new staff. Parts 5 and 6 contain a huge number of sensible, stand-alone recommendations, which should not be held up simply because we cannot agree on the macro-reforms.
Thirdly, there are some important issues about the domestic Committees. On Tuesday, we debated an important report from the Administration Committee, to which only three of the nine members had put their name. Select Committees have difficulty with quorums and continuity of membership. The domestic Committees face an even greater problem. Absenteeism on Select Committees has increased from 25 per cent. in 1995–96 to 34 per cent. in 1998–99. The figure for the Select Committee on Education and Employment is 50 per cent. I am happy to say that the Select Committee on Modernisation, on which I sit, has an 84 per cent. attendance rate.
Members of Parliament come to Westminster to represent their constituents, to support the Government or to hold them to account, to specialise in particular policy areas that interest them and to build a political career. There is growing pressure on our time, and that is unlikely to be reversed. Members do not come to Westminster to sit on a domestic Committee. As the pressure on Members' time has mounted, they have cut back on areas that are not priorities.

Mr. Llin Golding: I will not detain the House long, but the thing that concerns me about the report is its lack of clarity on what is happening to ordinary staff here. Terms and conditions of work change rapidly, yet I could not find out from the report whom, to talk to if I am concerned about someone, say, in the Tea Room who had had their conditions altered, some of the doormen, or a reduction in numbers. There does not seem to be anything in the report that explains how those matters are decided.

Sir George Young: It sounds as if the hon. Lady was one of the hon. Members interrogated by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and invited to say whom she would go to. The answer that was given by the hon. Gentleman was the Clerk, who will, if not answer the question himself, at least route it in the right direction. However, she has made the point that there is lack of clarity about the management structure.
Against the background of the problem of the domestic Committees, I found it a bold recommendation that we should retain them.
Fourthly, I think that that raises a broader question about an alternative career structure in the House—which recognises that becoming a Minister is not the only way of serving; which recognises that, if Parliament is to do its job properly, it is important to have on both sides of the House hon. Members who do not want to become Ministers; and which recognises the contributions of those hon. Members. Although that takes us beyond this debate, I believe that, if such a structure existed, it would make it easier to deal with some of the problems identified by Braithwaite.
Fifthly, and penultimately, there is the proposal to make the Finance and Services Committee, which is composed entirely of hon. Members, the Commission's executive committee. The criticism of the domestic Committees was that they acted in executive mode, not policy mode. The proposals for the Finance and Services Committee run the risk of magnifying that problem—of muddling up policy and services.
As for paragraph 4.21, I am not sure that these are the right tasks for members. One of them is
to carry out individual tasks delegated to it by the Commission".
That is meant to be done by members of the Finance and Services Committee, which includes the Leader of the House and the two Deputy Chief Whips. I wonder whether it is really their job to run the Commission's executive missions. Indeed, it seems that the problem is that the Finance and Services Committee, as described in Braithwaite, becomes rather close to the Board of Management.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the Commission. Paragraph 4.6 reminds us of what Ibbs hoped that the Commission would do. The report tactfully suggests that we have not lived up to expectations, and I agree. However, I have some difficulty with the paragraph that asserts that the Commission is of the right size. It consists of the Speaker and five Members, many of whom are doing many other things—not least, of course, Madam Speaker.
It is worth considering the option of a larger Commission, not least because paragraph 15.10 envisages the Commission doing more work. If we had a larger Commission, it would give breadth and depth to our discussion, and we are rather light on newer and younger members.
With those initial thoughts, I welcome the report and look forward to taking forward its implementation with my fellow Commissioners.
7.7 pm

Mr. Richard Allan: It might be useful if I, as Chairman of the Information Committee, were to share with the House some of the Committee's views on the report. Many of the matters that we cover are matters of great concern to hon. Members, and today's debate has reinforced that view in my mind. I should like to try to explain how the Committee sees our role in the context of Braithwaite and of some of the points made in the debate.
We certainly believe that the information technology infrastructure will be increasingly important in the House. We now have more than 300 hon. Members on our


network, and, very importantly, more than 1,000 Members' staff. The vast majority of hon. Members offices are connected, even when certain Members are not using e-mail daily.
The Library facilities changed dramatically and very successfully under the previous Librarian. The facilities will continue changing in that manner, and they are one of the major points of interface for hon. Members with staff of the House. Library staff are used daily by hon. Members, and the Committee could provide valuable input in that relationship.
As for the public interface, we have the Official Report and all the work that its staff do, and the website, which provides a growing public interface. The role of the website needs to be examined, and we require policy input from hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, as the media change, it would be useful to bring together some of the broadcast functions. In terms of policy, the content that we are making available on web television, the internet and normal television could usefully be brought together. The Information Committee would perhaps not want a role in determining the rules of parliamentary broadcasting, as those could perhaps be best determined elsewhere, but we could play a role in their implementation.
The Committee also acts as a force in putting issues on the agenda. In response to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), the Committee regrets that the entire estate is not cabled. However, we act as a force in making it clear that, as a matter of policy, the offices of all hon. Members should be cabled. We do not want the executive role of implementing that policy, and it is certainly up to others to decide whether the money is available and how the policy is implemented. Our Committee does not want to interfere in day-to-day work, but we want to give a clear steer to officers. I hope that they appreciate our clear steers, such as our wish for the offices of every Member of Parliament to be cabled.
To respond to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White), let me sat that we are also putting on the agenda the issue of linking all constituency offices to the network. We recognise how Members of Parliament now work. They might want their constituency staff and their support staff in the House to access their diary system. Officers have got that message clearly from us. That would not happen if there were no Committee to go through the issues.

Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Committee would also like to ensure that the connection to constituency offices is made at no cost to Members?

Mr. Allan: Our Committee holds that view; it is for others to decide. We are not allowed to go into the office costs allowance, although we continually touch on it. We are a group of Members of Parliament in a formal setting who are interested in the subject, and that is the view that we are putting forward. Without the strength that that formal structure gives the argument, we might lose something. I am not engaging in special pleading for me or for the Committee; I am merely pointing out that the structure has a valuable role. That is down to the membership of the Committee.
Domestic Committees sometimes have an unfair reputation. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is one of the star performers on the Committee, but there are many others who come along on a Tuesday afternoon for very little recompense. They get actively involved in letting officers know what Members of Parliament want. That would not happen with a user group or a less formal structure, when only people with complaints would come. Complaints have to get through, but it is important to have a group of people who are actively involved in policy formulation. I am pleased that members of my Committee are able to do that with the dedication that they show.

Ms Oona King: Many Members of Parliament want IT support. Has the Committee considered that? In any other company that I have worked for, if my computer broke down, I could contact someone who would fix it. I find it astonishing that, as a British Member of Parliament in the 21st century, if my computer breaks down, I have no recourse.

Mr. Allan: This morning, I was speaking with a senior officer from the Parliamentary Communications Directorate about the possibility of setting up a Members' support service. That is on the agenda and a report will be produced. We welcome any input on that.
We are looking for a clearer line of accountability with the Commission. That many also help other domestic Committees. We would like the Commission to come to us with its ideas and ask us, as a group of IT and information specialists, to give our views and do some of the work that it cannot do, because its members do not want to don anoraks and go into such detail. We would also like to have a proactive role and be able to ask the Commission for permission to investigate ideas that have come from Members, such as the radical thought of wanting to use computers in Committee Rooms. Braithwaite recommends clearer two-way communication. We believe that we have such a role, but we would like greater clarity.
We welcome Braithwaite's reference to a formal statement of costs and benefits. We are not responsible for the detailed budget setting, but we can give a view on whether a proposal is good value for money. As specialists, relatively speaking, we can say whether an idea will provide value for money in the service that it will deliver in a way that the Commission might find difficult. We entirely accept that implementation is down to officers, but we believe that we can act as a useful sounding board and a source of ideas and feedback from Members.
We accept that Departments should move to a corporate approach on IT. That has been a problem, but we have had a good example recently of how it can work. The IT convergence strategy and the Y2K issue brought all the Departments of the House and all the IT specialists together. The staff of the House are to be congratulated on their success. That should also be a pointer to how we move forward. Indeed, Braithwaite suggests that we move in that direction.
It is useful to put on record the two small points on which we disagree with the Braithwaite recommendations. He suggests, first, that domestic Committees no longer have specialist advisers. My Committee uses an academic with strong IT expertise. It would feel the lack of any


external expert advice. When the issue is considered further, we hope that our particular requirement for expertise will be borne in mind.
The second point was a suggestion that no departmental paper should come to a domestic Committee before being approved by the Board of Management. We feel that we have a useful role in seeing things early. When something is to be implemented, it should go through the Board of Management, and we do not want to interfere with that executive role. However, we feel that Departments such as the Library should be able to bring things to us at an early stage and get some views before finalising a paper to go to the Board of Management.
With those two exceptions noted, I can say that we feel that the report is a positive way forward. We exist as a group of Members who are keen to respond to exactly the kind of demands that we have had today, to implement them and to bring forward excellent information systems to serve Parliament. We would welcome a clearer relationship with the Commission to achieve that, and I hope that Braithwaite will give us the kind of structure in which we can work. Hopefully, services can continue to improve, as I believe that they have improved dramatically under the excellent offices of recent years.
7.16 pm

Mr. Christopher Chope: When I was the Minister responsible for privatising the Property Services Agency, I had the discussions with Sir Robin Ibbs that led to the Ibbs report. The recommendations in the Braithwaite report are rather woolly. It is an informative report, but it is not clear whether the recommendations are as crisp as I would wish.
Robin Ibbs was keen to emphasise the importance of value for money, and made recommendations about a lot of value-for-money studies. This report makes it clear that those studies were never really carried out. That is gravely disappointing because, if anyone in this country should be keen on establishing their belief in value for money, it should be this House of Commons. We take it upon ourselves to criticise Government Departments, Ministers and the public sector for the use and priorities of taxpayers' money, and yet it seems that we are still lax in scrutinising our own expenditure.
The report says that the Members of this House are, in effect, 659 small businesses. One thing is certain—if we were, we would know a lot more about our costs than we do. We would know, for example, what the cost of office accommodation for our secretariat was per square foot. We do not know that and, as we know, if one cannot measure it, one cannot control it. I would like to see more transparency and accountability.
The report asks what will happen when somebody gives in to the pressure for the office costs allowance to increase. It may mean that people will take on more staff, with more demand for accommodation in the centre of Westminster in one of the most expensive office environments in the world. What can we do about that?
I would suggest that the costs of Members' office staff accommodation should be included within the office costs allowance. I suspect that, if hon. Members were given an allowance for office costs to include accommodation for secretaries, research assistants and so on, many would decide that it was more economical to employ those people in their constituencies, as the labour and

accommodation costs are lower. At the moment, all the incentives are the other way, and all the pressure is to have the extra staff employed in or around Westminster.

Mr. Forth: I would not want to undermine my hon. Friend's argument, but he should bear in mind that, as ever, London Members are an exception to that. I hope that he recognises that fact.

Mr. Chope: I am sure that, if the recommendation were to be taken further, a special case could be made for London Members. However, Members with constituencies like mine—about 100 miles away—will agree that, if I employ a secretary in my constituency, the office accommodation costs, the costs of the photocopier, the costs of the photocopier paper and the costs of the telephone calls and faxes all have to be borne out of my office costs allowance. That is one of the reasons why many Members choose to employ staff at Westminster. If we increase the office costs allowance, and that results in an increase in the number of staff employed by Members, who then expect that those staff should be accommodated at Westminster, there will be no limit on expenditure in the future. If we want a rational approach to dealing with that, perhaps the Commission should consider the method of transparency and accountability that I have suggested.
My final point is a request for information. I do not know how the space in the Press Gallery is paid for. Do the individual newspapers pay for it on a per square foot basis? Who pays for the telephone calls and is there any control over them? If any service is freely available, the temptation always exists to abuse it. In the debate earlier in the week, we discussed subsidising the Line of Route to the tune of £200,000 or more. If we are that strapped for cash, we could start by charging for some of the space that is occupied in the Palace. We could then pay for the Line of Route without undertaking the convoluted process that we discussed on Tuesday night. The idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that we should allow free access to this place to members of the public, might be possible on cost grounds if we recovered costs from users of the building who do not contribute at the moment.

Sir George Young: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Government have been defeated by 96 votes in a vote on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill in the other place. The Leader of the House in the other place has said that the Bill is now damaged irretrievably. She has also said that the Home Secretary will make the Government's position clear. Have you received any indication from the Home Secretary that he plans to do that and, if the Leader of the House of Lords has announced that the Bill is to be re-introduced in the House of Commons, should not that announcement have been made here, not in the other place?

Madam Speaker: I have had no information from the other place about the legislation there. Unfortunately, people do not give me information about what is happening in the other place and I tend to have to wait until I read the Official Report the next day. I take the


point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I have not been informed by the Home Secretary that he seeks to make any statement to the House this evening.

Mr. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House is represented here and could surely throw some light on what the Government propose to do.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a point of order, because I will not allow a debate.

Mr. Tipping: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it the precedent of the House to have a statement every time the Government are defeated in the House of Lords? If it were, we would not have much time for our own discussions.

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) wish to wind up the debate?
7.23 pm

Mr. Kirkwood: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With the leave of the House, I feel a duty to make a brief response to the comments that have been made. I have found this an interesting and useful debate, and my fellow Commissioners will wish to study with great care what has been said.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) mentioned confusion, and it is true that some confusion exists. That is unacceptable, and we are determined to do something about it. As the Commissioner who answers questions on the Floor of the House, I am delighted to be asked oral or written questions, but I cannot stimulate them myself. I do not know what questions hon. Members have. The hon. Gentleman said that he was disappointed that he got such a negative response to the rather nebulous question that he posed to his sample of Members. The answer to his question, and for any hon. Member who is confused about where to seek information, is the Commission's annual report, which is a very thorough document. It deals Department by Department with where responsibility lies and it is updated every year. It is an encyclopaedia of information. If anyone wishes to find out anything about this place, they need only take it home to read in bed.

Mr. Forth: I shall do so tonight.

Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush did not stray far from the general thrust of the report when he suggested that someone should take charge. However, he is confusing a strategic corporate officer who would set a framework within which the whole organisation could work with a customer complaints manager. That issue is dealt with fully in appendix G of the report. If the Clerk of the House were given the

support that the report recommends, he would have it in his power to make arrangements for the appointment of the equivalent of a customer services manager.
I do not think that there is a gulf between the hon. Gentleman and me. The Leader of the House noted that a person brought in from the private sector who was used to employing normal management practices would not last very long in this place. The House has a federal structure, with Chinese walls between Departments. There are also important questions of departmental independence, but the tone of the report is that we should move more quickly than has been the case so far towards a corporate structure. If we adopt that recommendation, and give the Clerk of the House the support that the report suggests, I hope that some of the problems that have been identified will be resolved.

Mr. Soley: I agree that the gap between the hon. Gentleman and me is not that great. However, his arguments about Chinese walls and so on reminded me of the arguments used in hospitals and elsewhere to prevent the introduction of chief executives. We are in danger of repeating that error.
My point is that adopting the structure set out in the report carries the danger that the Clerk of the House would become more of a manager, and less of a Clerk. To let that happen would be to lose something very valuable.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that danger, but it is not one that frightens me. If the corporate structure evolves and is properly serviced, one person may end up—in the fullness of time and once people have experience of working in different departments—with the primary management role. In a proper, evolved corporate structure, it is entirely possible that someone other than the Clerk of the House could become the primus inter pares. That is envisaged in the report, although I accept that we must be careful about how we get to that stage, and that doing so will take some time.
Although I do not think that there is a lot of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me, I undertake to ensure that his comments are studied and considered.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) is going to be in great demand for service on just about every domestic Committee. Her plea for better use of her time was irresistible, and I absolutely agree with her. I believe that the new intake of hon. Members has made a positive difference to the House. From the point of view of the Commission, I can tell the hon. Lady that the new intake's approach is beginning to percolate through the House in a very positive manner, and I hope that she will be encouraged by that.
It is a shame that the hon. Lady is not wired up. I shall speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who is not without influence in such matters. I hope that an electrician with a box of wires will appear in her office quite soon.
The report states that the number of parliamentary data and video network accounts has increased by more than 1,000, or 49 per cent., since December 1997, and that the number of Members of both Houses, and their staff, with PDVN accounts has increased by 115 per cent. since December 1997. Those accounts have to be managed, and we have to find the money to pay for that. Staff are


working their socks off to make sure that demand is met, and I am delighted at the support that has been received for the work that is done.
The Commission is aware of the problems. We know that we are not responding fast enough and that there is a long way to go, but we are trying to get there. I hope that the hon. Lady will find some reassurance in the report.
I have to tell the hon. Lady that the Commission can do nothing about the rifle range, which does not belong to the House of Commons. In any case, it could be used as a creche only for children who were long and thin, who were prepared to stay in order and run in an absolutely straight line. The rifle range in fact belongs to the staff: the heritable property of the House does not belong to the Commission.
The Commission is doing its best to build on the very popular staff scheme for child care. Every 18 months or two years, the Commission asks staff about their child care voucher scheme, and they tell us that they are very happy with it. We accept that there is a need to provide such services, and the Commission is doing everything that it can in that respect.
However, I can tell the hon. Lady that everything that she said is in line with the general thrust of what Braithwaite is trying to do. I take her speech as a stern warning that, if we do not do better, faster, we will have her to reckon with in future, and quite right, too.
I am always grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I learned a lot from him—he was my predecessor on the Commission, and I look forward to picking his brains in the Tea Room at much greater length. I was grateful to his remarks, which added to the debate.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) talked about the office costs allowance. This might seem perverse, but we have no control over it. I want people to understand that. It is right that, if it were increased by 10 per cent. tomorrow, it would exponentially increase the demand to which our works and administration budget would have to respond. If hon. Members want to influence that, they must make their own representations to the Senior Salaries Review Body. A lot of positive work is done; collective group purchasing is available on the PDVN, and that is a welcome step forward. At the next election, there will be a marvellous opportunity—if the will is there and people who feel strongly about this make their representations in the right way, we might get something done positively in the next Parliament, but I do not think that it will be much before then.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does not know the cost of running the House of Commons. Page 14 of the annual report gives the figures—it has pie charts, so even the right hon. Gentleman might be able to understand. It has percentages and little coloured graphs.

Mr. Forth: What is the figure?

Mr. Kirkwood: The administration vote is £85.3 million. The work services vote is £99.6 million. Taking the office costs member vote into account, the total running costs for last year were £273.9 million. That includes quite a lot of capital expenditure for Portcullis House. We cannot build that fast enough either, but the Braithwaite report does not deal with Portcullis House.
I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has been for—

Mr. Forth: 16 years.

Mr. Kirkwood: It seems longer to some of us. We elect the membership of these Committees. There are motions late at night, when sometimes even the right hon. Gentleman is in his place. These motions are amendable and debatable.

Mr. Miller: Do not tell him.

Mr. Kirkwood: I have given the game away, and we are now in for many more hard and long nights. These names are all approved by the House. We could delete one name and add another, and eventually end up with a debate. I think that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's question.
I was grateful for the support that the PDVN received from various hon. Members. I was grateful, too, for the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I look forward to working with him to take this process forward.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Hallam both made important points but, again, broadly supported the thrust of the report. I look forward to talking to them informally.
Finally, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is a very brave man if he tells his local and regional press sees that there are moves afoot in the House of Commons to start charging their editors to get copy from the Press Gallery.

Mr. Chope: I am certainly not going to have my remarks misrepresented in that way. I suggested that there should be a charge per square foot for the office accommodation used by members of the press.

Mr. Kirkwood: I was teasing the hon. Gentleman. It is an important point. I was astonished when I discovered the extent of the facilities up there. We had a look in the previous Parliament and were so horrified by the facilities that we spent a lot of money trying to improve fire safety and other health and safety measures. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is a good question.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be looking in every corner of the estate to try to make the place more efficient in a way that is properly costed and transparent for all our constituents.
This has been a valuable debate and, as a Commissioner, I feel that it has given us something to work on. I have assured hon. Members that we will ensure that progress will be reported religiously and transparently in full consultation. All the points made today will be carefully considered, and we hope to make progress quickly and in a way that people fully understand and can respond to as they think appropriate. Without more ado, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DISQUALIFICATIONS BILL

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Disqualifications Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Dowd.]

COMMITTEES

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Ordered,
That Mr. Peter Bradley be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. David Lepper be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd]

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
That Mr. David Drew be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and David Taylor he added to the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

PETITION

Food Labelling

Mr. Kerry Pollard (St. Albans): I am pleased to present and support a petition raised by my local National Farmers Union, which has been signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents.
It declares:
The labelling of food is currently confusing and misleading.
The petitioner therefore requests the House of Commons to urge the Minister to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity so that only produce which originates in Britain can be labelled as British, thereby allowing consumers who want to buy British the freedom to do so.
To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Parliamentary Bills

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Brian White: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) earlier referred to impossible battles, and I shall try to take one on. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for his comments on Second Reading of the Electronic Communications Bill. I worry about being so heartily in agreement with a member of the Tory party, but it happens sometimes. I should also put on the record our debt to the House of Lords for debating the matter of plain English several times. I acknowledge the help of the Plain English Campaign, which, since this debate appeared on the Order Paper, has given me some interesting material.
We should start by asking whose interests we serve. In every sphere of life, in government and business, we are moving from being a producer-oriented society to being one in which users and consumers come first. It is unfortunate that Parliament lags behind. The interests of our constituents should be the primary focus when we draft legislation. A myth exists that some language is "right" and some "wrong". In truth, language evolves. For example, there is currently an interesting debate about Spanish as Hispanics in the United States of America are changing the language. Language changes.
My main concern is legalese language that is difficult to understand. By that, I mean such things as unnecessary technical terms, the impersonal style of Bills, twisted word orders, needless repetition or elaboration, unhelpful layout, long sentences, use of double negatives, use of passive verbs rather than active ones and so on. I want to deal with several different areas in this debate.
First, I propose that we have a purpose clause in every Bill. Secondly, we should review legislation as much as pass new legislation. Thirdly, we should tackle the issue of non-sexist language in Bills. Fourthly, we need to use plain English in legislation, particularly statutory instruments.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Public Administration, which considered the Freedom of Information Bill. It was suggested that the Bill should have a purpose clause, as has been proposed on several other occasion. Nearly every time, such clauses were rejected as setting a precedent. It is not conventional to include them. Occasionally, as in the case of the Children Acts, purpose clauses have been accepted but, in discussions on whether a Bill needs one, we are usually told, "We don't want to do it in this Bill because that's not the way it is generally done."
Every Bill should have a purpose clause. Some people will point out that, since Pepper v. Hart, Ministers' comments can be taken into account. However, as Lord Lester, who gave evidence to the Select Committee, pointed out, that would be true only when the wording in the Bill is unclear. Only then would the court resort to Pepper v. Hart.
A purpose clause in every Bill would not only explain the intentions of the Bill, but guard against unforeseen implications and prevent the semantic errors that dog so


much of our legislation. It would make the intentions of Ministers clear to the courts in any subsequent arguments over interpretation and enhance our legislation.
One of the things that we do well in this place is pass legislation; its quantity is testimony to that. However, we rarely review it. When we do so, it is either after a change of Government or because there is a crisis or uproar. The Child Support Agency is a classic example; we reviewed it because it was not working. There were problems, pressure built up and we had to reform it. In other cases, the review is in response to rulings from the European Court—as has happened in the case of the armed forces legislation—or to European directives.
In America, sunset clauses in Bills have become popular. I support them in certain circumstances; they can play a valuable role. The inclusion of such a clause in the Electronic Communications Bill is a useful innovation. We need to build a quality review process into every piece of legislation and to ensure that, as times change, the purpose of the Bill changes with them. Too often, circumstances change, but legislation fails to catch up.
The Select Committee on Deregulation has a role to play in that matter. The Committee could consider legislation and initiate changes through its procedures. I urge the Minister, in his review of the Committee, to consider that matter. I realise that the Law Commission examines legislation. I do not suggest the replacement of its role; I want a political review rather than the technical one that it necessarily undertakes.
I find the use of sexist language in our legislation hard to stomach. When I entered local government in the 1980s and when I was growing up in the trade union movement, there were battles about the use of sexist language. Those battles are over. In business, in local government—even in the local pub—people manage to talk in non-sexist language; it has become the norm. The one matter where we have not caught up is in the drafting of Bills.
I fully expect the forces of conservatism to continue to use offensive and degrading language. Some hon. Members would be quite prepared to use it deliberately. However, we should not have to acquiesce in that practice. It is important that Bills are written so as to avoid the use of "he" in references to a man or woman. For example, clause 10 of the Electronic Communications Bill contains the words
the Director shall not make any modification unless … he has considered every representation made to him about the modification".
Why cannot we say that
the Director shall not make any modification unless representations about the modification have been considered"?
We do not need to use the word "he" in that context.
I am not worried if the odd bit of sexist language slips through. My point relates to the use of language and the cultural change that is needed, not to the requirements of narrow political correctness. However, we desperately need to address the issue.
If we expect people to follow the law, it is important that they understand it. I hope that I am a reasonably intelligent person, but, if I have to read every Bill three or four times before I understand it, there really is something wrong. Acts of Parliament should not just be for lawyers and MPs. That difficulty in understanding legislation is a problem for our democracy.
An example occurred this week when the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was considering a regulation on the working families tax credit, which is one of the best measures that the Government have introduced, and which has helped many people. The tax credit is paid through employers. S.I. No. 3219 details how it should be paid and in what circumstances. The Committee Clerk could not understand a particular part of the regulation. If someone as eminent as a Clerk can misunderstand such a crucial piece of legislation, which is the cornerstone of the Government's policy to help people out of poverty, what hope has a small business man or woman of understanding it?
We use pre-legislative scrutiny a great deal now; it is becoming the norm. I welcome that innovation. Part of the consultation process ought to be to submit every draft Bill to the Plain English Campaign. The aim should be to ensure that as many Bills as possible get a crystal mark, although certain technical Bills might not be able to achieve it. I understand that the Scottish Parliament would have achieved that mark recently, but for a few minor points.
In Canada, the Uniform Law Conference's drafting conventions say:
An Act should be written simply, clearly and concisely, with the required degree of precision, and as much as possible in ordinary language".
If there were any Tory Members here, I would upset them with my next quote because even the European Union guidelines say that
the wording of an Act should be clear, simple, concise and unambiguous".
The use of technological terminology should be appropriate, and Acts should not include redundant or archaic words and phrases.
I accept that change is not the easy option. It would be easier to continue with jargon, legalese and convention. I recognise that it is hard to achieve precision, clarity and ease of understanding and that Parliamentary drafters would have to do a lot more thinking. However, it does not help legislation if we produce Bills with 127-word sentences and excessive detail. That leads to complexity, obscurity and uncertainty.
The Freedom of Information Bill states:
Where, on making his request for information, the applicant expresses a preference for communication by any one or more of the following means, namely
(a) the provision to the applicant of a copy of the information in permanent form or in another form acceptable to the applicant",
when the applicant is simply asking for a copy of a record. The Irish Freedom of Information Act says:
A head may give access under this Act to a record providing the requestor with
(a) A copy of the record".
The Australian Act says:
Access to a document may be given to a person in one or more of the following forms —
(c) Provision by an agency of Government of a copy of the document".
That is simple and everybody understands it. Why do we need to make it unnecessarily complex and ensure, through the tautology of language, that people do not understand what we are asking them to do?
The British Bill has 86 clauses and seven schedules; the Irish Act has 48 clauses and three schedules. By making our legislation unnecessarily complex, we do a disservice to our democracy by placing citizens at the mercy of the bureaucratic state and by making it easier for people to make the legitimate excuse that they did not understand what we were asking of them.
There is a myth that plain English is not legally accurate, but that has been steadily and repeatedly shattered. In the United States, 44 states have some form of requirement for plain English, and there has never been a case in which a contract has been declared less legally valid because of the use of the plain English.
We need to replace the long sentences, the verbiage and the countless double negatives. I do not understand why we have to frame legislation in negative terms. We should replace the old formalities with concise, simple, familiar and precise language.
Nowhere is that more important than in statutory instruments. Last year, we produced more than 3,000 statutory instruments. Why do we need to dot all the i's and cross all the t's? We need a third way of regulation. The laissez-faire of let it rip should not apply and neither should we nail down everything to say how a particular regulation should be implemented. We should set the objective of the regulation, but not necessarily worry about how people achieve it. We should set the way forward. That is a true third way for regulations.
At present, 60 statutory instruments go through each meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and consideration of them lasts for about 30 minutes. That shows how much attention is given to them. Unless they are made much clearer and the scrutiny is made much better, our system of checks and balances will be lost.
We have started to modernise government, but I recognise that there is a long way to go. Although I do not expect the Minister to wave a magic wand—but if anyone could do that, he could—and accept everything that I say, I seek a commitment from the Government that they will consider the issues. I hope that they will examine purpose clauses, the language of Bills and review the way that we legislate.
In 1997, the Prime Minister said that we had been elected as new Labour and that we intended to govern as new Labour. I think that he has been true to his word. In fact, the Plain English Campaign said that its finest hour was when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Access to Justice Act 1999, which ended Latin usage in the courts. If we can do that in government—we are doing really well with thousands of documents and White Papers—why cannot we do it in legislation? Let us have a third pillar and start to legislate as new Labour with plain language.
7.52 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) on securing this important debate. It is highly appropriate that my hon. Friend, who did so much to secure the future of the material on which Acts of Parliament are written and stored, should turn his considerable energies and intelligence to considering what is written on the vellum.
I have much sympathy, as do the public, with my hon. Friend's points, and I shall try to answer them in the order in which he raised them. If I fail to deal with them all, I shall write to him.
By "purpose clauses" people sometimes mean guiding principles for interpreting the text, and sometimes statements of principle on which the detail of legislation is based. In either case, the statements are intended to have legal effect. It is wrong to think that using those techniques in all Bills would be an advance; they would often create confusion.
Guiding principles may be open to interpretation in many ways. The result is vague law: citizens cannot know with any certainty how the law affects them in their particular circumstances. That approach can have a place, but it must be used with the utmost caution.
With statements of principle, the problem is duplication. There is a real risk of inconsistency between statements of principle and the detailed provisions of an Act, because the same thing is said twice in different words. That can create a dilemma in deciding where the balance lies between the general principle and the specific rule, and which of them matters most in specific circumstances. Those views have been taken by successive Governments and are supported by the two main modern reports on the law-making process—the Renton report of 1975 and the Hansard Society report of 1992.
Both types of material have their uses, and examples can be found in various Acts in recent years. There are good reasons not to include such statements in Acts as a routine practice, but we shall continue to use the techniques where it is helpful to do so.
It is highly desirable that the purpose of a Bill be explained, but it should be explained alongside the legislation and not in the legislation itself. As part of the modernisation programme, the Government took up a proposal by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for explanatory notes and introduced them from the beginning of last Session. They are published alongside Bills and are available to the general public from the Stationery Office and on the internet. They are prepared when the Bill is first introduced; revised when the Bill enters its Second House; and revised again when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The new notes do not form part of the Bill and do not claim to be authoritative or to have received Parliament's approval.

Mr. White: Does my hon. Friend accept that some explanatory notes have caused problems for those seeking to understand them, or have simply repeated what is in the Bill? There is much that we could learn about improving them as we go forward.

Mr. Stringer: I am not aware of those examples, although I would be prepared to examine them and to respond to them.
The freedom is there to use techniques that cannot be used in Bills. The notes can explain the background to a measure; they can give worked examples; and they can explain difficult concepts by setting them out in different ways. All that makes the law easier to grasp. The notes are still in their infancy, but the initial reaction has been encouraging.
The next issue is the regular review of legislation, to which the Government give high priority. Such review is essential to change and modernisation. Without a change in the law, many policies could not be implemented. As my hon. Friend mentioned the Law Commission, which regularly reviews the law, I will not go into the detail of the programme that it undertakes.
The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 provides for the repeal of statutory provisions in the interests of deregulation, by an order made after consultation and after parliamentary consideration of the proposal. As hon. Members will know, the Government will be bringing forward legislation to widen the scope of this power.
My hon. Friend may feel that more could be done, and I would not disagree with him in principle. However, parliamentary and departmental resources are always at a premium, and the price of more weeding out of obsolete law would be the sacrifice of new legislation, which is often needed urgently.
My hon. Friend spoke of the need for gender-free language in legislation. I congratulate the good burghers of Milton Keynes on having public houses that are free of sexist language. I look forward to visiting Milton Keynes to witness this extraordinary phenomenon.
The issue is covered by section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which ensures that courts and others give legislation a gender-free interpretation, whether or not the words in the legislation are gender free. If "he or she" is meant, that is how the Act will be interpreted, whether or not the text of an Act uses "he" or "she". Users of legislation, whether they are men or women, have not found the convention confusing. The use of "he or she" and other phrases to overcome the objection to the use of "he" alone adds a complication which is bound on occasion to make the meaning of a provision less easy to ascertain.
As my hon. Friend suggests, there will frequently be ways round the problem, such as the repetition of a noun or the use of the plural, or the use of an alternative gender-neutral word, where one exists. It is inevitable, however, that there will remain some occasions when a provision will be less simple, and therefore less clear, if the drafter must take account of objectives other than legal accuracy and clarity.
Let me offer an example. The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 inserted a new part into the Employment Rights Act 1996, to protect workers from detriment when making a disclosure which is in the public interest. Section 43G(2) includes the words:
that, at the time he makes the disclosure, the worker reasonably believes that he will be subjected to a detriment by his employer if he makes a disclosure to his employer".
If "he" is replaced with "he or she", the provision reads:
that, at the time he or she makes the disclosure, the worker reasonably believes that he or she will be subjected to a detriment by his or her employer if he or she makes a disclosure to his or her employer".
That is less clear, if non-sexist. The use of masculine pronouns could be avoided without loss of simplicity by using feminine pronouns instead. I do not know whether all those who object to the present system would regard that as satisfactory, but from the drafter's point of view, it would be equally effective.
Clarity is enhanced if the policy underlying legislation is straightforward. The Human Rights Act 1998 has been praised for its clarity. It represents legislation in a new field where there was no accumulation of statute and case law that the drafter had to take into account. However, legislation on a complicated topic is bound to be complex.
Even for simple policies, the law sometimes has to be set out in considerable detail. As the Renton report stated in 1975:
the draftsman—
the word "draftsperson" could have been used in 1975—
must never be forced to sacrifice certainty for simplicity, since the result may be to frustrate the legislative intention. An unfortunate subject may be driven to litigation because the meaning of an Act was obscure which could, by the use of a few extra words, have been made plain.
My hon. Friend asked why there was so much detail in legislation, especially in statutory instruments. There are two elements to the answer. First, there is a need for certainty in legislation, even if that means detail. Leaving matters to be decided by the courts on the basis of broad objectives would mean that people could not know, perhaps for many years, how legislation applied to their specific circumstances. Secondly, much of the detail in statutory instruments covers administrative matters, which it would not be reasonable to expect courts to decide. For example, when a permit scheme is established, it would not be sensible to expect the courts to determine what information an applicant should provide.
The explanatory notes that I mentioned in the context of purpose clauses are also a step forward in making legislation easier to read. Explanatory material cannot be included in legislation without the risk of affecting its meaning and giving rise to arguments in the courts. However, the explanatory notes that accompany Bills and Acts make them far easier to understand.
Before leaving the topic, I want to respond to the comparisons that my hon. Friend made between the Freedom of Information Bill and similar measures in Australia and Ireland. Clause 10 appears more complicated because it grants a right of access to information recorded in any form rather than simply to specific documents or records. The provision not only lists the forms in which information may be provided but sets out rules for deciding whether the public authority is obliged to provide access in the form requested by the applicant. For example, it establishes rules to determine whether the public authority can insist on providing a photocopy when the applicant wants the information on disk. The Irish and Australian Acts also contain rules for the same purpose, but they appear later in the measures and my hon. Friend did not quote them. A true comparison with Australian legislation requires examination of section 20 in the Australian measure, which runs to a page. Our clause 10 is more compact, more conveniently arranged, and thus easier to follow.
It is because of the importance of the issues raised by my hon. Friend that I have gone into so much detail. The issue can be expressed quite succinctly: the essential need in legislation is law which is certain and which delivers the policy intention that underlies it.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock.